“What’s going on stinks to high heaven”

Summary

Deadline: White House – Episode Summary: “What’s Going On Stinks to High Heaven”

Release Date: July 25, 2025
Host: Nicolle Wallace, MSNBC

---

Introduction

In this gripping episode of Deadline: White House, host Nicolle Wallace delves into the murky waters surrounding the Department of Justice's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, the controversial merger approval by the FCC under the Trump administration, and the ensuing political turmoil within the Republican Party. Featuring insightful discussions with key experts, the episode sheds light on the intricate interplay between politics, justice, and media influence.

---

1. DOJ and the Jeffrey Epstein Files

[00:57] John Heilemann opens the discussion by highlighting concerns over Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's recent interactions with Ghislaine Maxwell. Blanche, previously Donald Trump's personal attorney, is scrutinized for potentially blurring lines between his former and current roles within the Justice Department.

Andrew Weissman, MSNBC legal analyst, provides a critical perspective:

"[06:29] Andrew Weissman: ...This could really reek of a cover-up. And in addition to the idea of giving somebody who has convicted child predator a break at sentencing, the nature of the crimes that she has been convicted of are horrendous."

Weissman explains that Blanche's meetings with Maxwell are unprecedented and raises red flags about the absence of career prosecutors who are well-versed in the Epstein case. He posits that such actions may indicate an attempt to obfuscate the truth and potentially protect high-profile individuals linked to Epstein.

Julie K. Brown, investigative reporter for the Miami Herald and author of "Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story," shares the profound impact on Epstein's victims:

"[09:04] Julie K. Brown: ...another betrayal, really, because this almost seems like The Sweetheart Deal 2.0..."

Brown emphasizes the retraumatization of victims and the sense of betrayal they feel, especially with the DOJ seemingly undermining justice. She questions the motives behind the DOJ's approach, pondering why they have not engaged directly with the victims to lay the groundwork for Maxwell's interviews.

Tim Miller, MSNBC political analyst, further explores the political ramifications:

"[14:44] Al Sharpton: ...this is a person that engaged in evil actions for decades..."

Reverend Al Sharpton joins to condemn Maxwell as a perpetrator rather than a victim, highlighting the severity of her crimes and criticizing any notion of her receiving leniency or a pardon.

The conversation pivots to the DOJ's intensive yet futile search for incriminating evidence within the Epstein files:

"[70:09] Mike Schmidt: ...they sent the deputy Attorney General off to do things. But not just the deputy Attorney General. ...they may be able to get away with that now, but it is a risk..."

Mike Schmidt, investigative reporter for The New York Times, unveils that despite deploying hundreds of staff to scour over 100,000 pages of Epstein-related documents, the DOJ failed to uncover any new information. Schmidt suggests that Blanche's meeting with Maxwell might be a desperate attempt to salvage credibility amidst mounting pressure.

---

2. FCC Merger Approval Under Trump's Leadership

Shifting focus, Heilemann introduces the contentious approval of the Paramount and Skydance Media merger by the FCC, led by Trump’s appointee.

Cornell Belcher, MSNBC political analyst, comments on the implications:

"[34:16] Cornell Belcher: ... we're at the beginning of a larger change, and right now we see a lot of examples of it happening."

Belcher asserts that this merger signifies a broader trend of governmental overreach and corruption, undermining traditionally apolitical bodies like the FCC. He criticizes Commissioner Anna Gomez's rebuke of the merger, labeling it as a capitulation to the Trump administration’s demands, which ultimately harms the American public.

Angelo Carazone, President of Media Matters for America, echoes these sentiments, highlighting the detrimental impact on media integrity and the chilling effect it has on corporate autonomy.

Nicole Wallace adds a layer of concern regarding crony capitalism and systemic rigging:

"[35:50] Nicole Wallace: ...this system is rigged by the wealthy and the powerful and the well-connected."

Wallace urges the American populace to recognize and resist the systemic corruption fueled by alliances between the government and powerful media conglomerates.

---

3. Republican Party's Internal Strife

The episode delves deep into the fracture within the Republican Party, particularly concerning the handling of the Epstein files.

A significant Quinnipiac University poll reveals:

"36% of Republicans disapprove of Trump's handling of the release of the files on Epstein."

This marks a rare instance of intraparty discontent, indicating a potential loosening grip of Trump over Republican legislators. Congresswoman Madeline Dean and Reverend Al Sharpton discuss how Trump's mishandling is alienating his own base:

"[54:27] John Heilemann: ...they have lost independence."

Dean laments the en masse capitulation of Republicans on the Appropriations Committee and highlights the moral and ethical decline within party ranks, exacerbated by Trump's influence.

Tim Miller theorizes:

"[57:30] Tim Miller: ...they have become the victims of their own plot."

Miller suggests that Trump's promises and subsequent failures to deliver have not only betrayed his supporters but also created a political maelstrom that even his staunchest allies are struggling to navigate.

---

4. Legal Nonprofits and the Rise of Small Law Firms Against Trump

In response to the Trump administration's assault on established law firms, Tracy Feithlove, President of Brilliant Corners Research, and Mike Schmidt discuss the emergence of small law firms and legal nonprofits stepping up to challenge Trump's policies.

Tracy Feithlove explains:

"[76:11] Tim Miller: ...this is not just a fishing expedition..."

Feithlove underscores the critical role of organizations like Lawyers for Good Government, which mobilize solo practitioners and small firms to take on significant litigation efforts that larger firms have abandoned due to political pressures and ethical compromises.

Mike Schmidt highlights the decline of major firms' integrity:

"[80:56] Mike Schmidt: ...the Paul Weiss story sort of took off, ...they were lawyers out there that also had the opportunity to take on cases that they believed were righteous..."

Schmidt points out that firms like Paul Weiss have lost their commitment to pro bono work, leading to a vacuum that smaller, more principled firms are now eager to fill. This shift is not only reshaping the legal landscape but also fortifying the fight against governmental overreach.

David Axelrod, Founder and Executive Director of Lawyers for Good Government, elaborates on the initiative:

"[85:09] David Axelrod: ...access to justice is not stifled by political extortion."

Axelrod emphasizes the organization's mission to ensure that legal representation remains accessible, especially as big law firms withdraw from politically sensitive cases.

---

5. Conclusion and Insights

Throughout the episode, Nicolle Wallace effectively unpacks the intricate power dynamics at play within the DOJ, the FCC, and the Republican Party. The discussions illuminate the profound challenges facing the American justice system and political landscape, particularly in the wake of high-profile scandals like that of Jeffrey Epstein.

Notably, the episode underscores the resilience of grassroots legal efforts in the face of institutional decline, highlighting a pivotal moment where individual commitment and smaller organizations are stepping up to preserve democratic integrity and ensure justice for victims.

The episode concludes with a stark portrayal of a system grappling with internal corruption, political maneuvering, and a desperate bid to control narratives, leaving listeners with a compelling call to action to resist the rigging of the system and advocate for transparency and accountability.

---

Notable Quotes

• Andrew Weissman at [06:29]: "This could really reek of a cover-up. And in addition to the idea of giving somebody who has convicted child predator a break at sentencing, the nature of the crimes that she has been convicted of are horrendous."

• Julie K. Brown at [09:04]: "...another betrayal, really, because this almost seems like The Sweetheart Deal 2.0..."

• Al Sharpton at [14:44]: "This is just, you know, happened to them. Remember, this began 20 years ago..."

• Nicole Wallace at [35:50]: "...this system is rigged by the wealthy and the powerful and the well-connected."

• Tracy Feithlove at [76:11]: "This is another thing that points to the notion that Trump is... afraid of what full disclosure would bring for him."

---

Final Thoughts

Deadline: White House masterfully navigates through complex and sensitive issues, providing listeners with a comprehensive understanding of the systemic challenges and political undercurrents shaping contemporary American society. Through expert analysis and compelling narratives, the episode serves as a crucial resource for those seeking clarity amidst the chaos of political scandals and institutional disarray.

Transcript

[Nicole Wallace]

Deadline White House is brought to you by Progressive, where drivers who save by switching save nearly $750 on average. Plus auto customers qualify for an average of 7 discounts. Quote [e-mail] to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of $744 by new customers surveyed who save with Progressive between June 2022 and May 2023. Potential savings will vary. Discounts not available in all states and situations.

[John Heilemann]

Road trips are all about the sights.

[Tracy Feithlove]

The sounds and the snacks. So pack the ultimate road trip fuel Blue Diamond Almonds this summer, they're your.

[John Heilemann]

Chance to win a new car.

[Tracy Feithlove]

Buy any 12 ounce or larger bag. Enter the [e-mail] and you could score thousands of prizes, including a new set of wheels.

[John Heilemann]

Hit the road with Blue Diver.

[Tracy Feithlove]

No purchase necessary. End September 15th open to 50 US and DC 18 years or older. For rules including free entry method, visit bdroadtrip.com Voidwear Prohibited grand prize awarded as $50,000 cash via PayPal this promotion is in no way sponsored, endorsed, administered by.

[John Heilemann]

Or associated with PayPal Inc. Hi there everyone. It's 4 o' clock in the east. The American people may never know, like really know what was said, what was revealed, what was asked, and what was answered today within the four walls of a courthouse conference room in Tallahassee, Florida. And therein lies the problem. Because for the second time in two days, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche blurred the lines between his old job and his new one. With his role at the Justice Department on one hand and his former role as Donald Trump's personal attorney on the other, Blanche departed his interview with Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. A short time ago. Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, David Oscar Marcus, said that at no point over the last two days did his client Maxwell refuse to answer a question. But here again, we have to take his word for it. It's not just that the rest of us are without any transcripts or recordings or witnesses in the course of the Trump administration's effort at fact finding that's what we're calling it. It's that it also feels like we're without any reliable narrators. After all, Donald Trump, a man with a pre existing adversarial relationship with the truth and the press, appears to be growing less and less forthright on this topic by the day. Remember when the Wall Street Journal exactly one week ago today reported that Trump sketched, scribbled and signed a letter for inclusion in Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday book. Trump's reaction said it was fake. He sued the publication along with a number of individuals, including Rupert Murdoch. Today, the New York Times is reporting this. Quote, trump's name appeared on a contributor list for a book celebrating Epstein's birthday. Evidence that he participated in the collection, even as he denied that he signed a sexually suggestive note and drawing, end quote. Now, again, these stories are not suggesting or providing evidence that Donald Trump committed crimes or engaged in illegal conduct. He's denied every allegation. But Democrats and Republicans alike, even some of Donald Trump's own most devoted supporters and backers, have growing questions about the Epstein story and Trump's transparency on it. Just listen to how he answered this question.

[Andrew Weissman]

Would you consider a pardon or a commutation for Ghislaine Maxwell?

[Tim Miller]

If it's something I haven't thought about.

[John Heilemann]

I would have recommended it.

[Mike Schmidt]

I'm allowed to do it, but it's.

[Nicole Wallace]

Something I have not thought about.

[John Heilemann]

That was weird. I suppose we'll just chalk it up to another plot point in a story that is now completely beyond and outside of Trump's ability to produce and control, which is new for him. Just look at what advocates flew over Tallahassee, Florida today. A banner that reads, quote, trump and Bondi are protecting predators, end quote. That's where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. Investigative reporter for the Miami Herald, Julie K. Brown is here. She is also the author of Perversion of Justice, the Jeffrey Epstein Story. Also joining us today, former top official at the Department of Justice, MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissman's here. And Tim Miller joins us, host of the Bulwark podcast and an MSNBC political analyst. Let me start with you, Andrew Weissman, and two days of meetings between Todd Blanche and Ghislaine Maxwell. What is going on and what are we likely to learn about whatever has happened in that room?

[Andrew Weissman]

So, first, I want to make sure people understand that when her attorney goes out to speak and says she answered every question and she never asserted a privilege, that may be true, but that is sort of half the one. She is not speaking for free. She is obviously hoping for a pardon, a commutation, or at least a significant reduction in sentence. But also, you can be, I would say, almost 100% sure that she already has an agreement with the government. It's called a proffer agreement. It's colloquially known as a queen for a day agreement. And that is an agreement where the prosecutor says, I want to hear what your client has to say, but agrees to give a form of immunity with respect to the use of that in any direct way against the particular witness. And so the reason is the, what I read into what David Marcus is saying is the reason she wasn't asserting a privilege is that she doesn't need to. She already has that form of immunity. In connection with yesterday and today's sessions.

[John Heilemann]

With Todd Blanch and Andrew how, how bizarre is it for the Deputy Attorney General who's supposed to be running the Department of Justice to spend two days in Tallahassee with Ghislaine Maxwell?

[Andrew Weissman]

It is unheard of. It does not happen. And you know what, add one more thing. It doesn't happen that the Deputy Attorney General, the number two person in the department would engage in this proper session. But even more so, where are the career agents and prosecutors? Why aren't the career prosecutors from the Southern District of New York in on this? They're the ones who know the evidence inside out. They actually tried Ghislaine Maxwell. They actually have investigated her and Jeffrey Epstein. So you really have to wonder what's going on here. There's no way for Todd Blanch to all of the facts and to be able to test what she is saying. And so, you know, one thing I am looking for is whether this sort of ends up biting them if they try and cooperate her based on a two day proffer by somebody in the Department of Justice who doesn't know the case. This could really reek of a cover up. And in addition to the idea of giving somebody who has convicted child predator a break at sentencing, I mean, as Julie knows, you know better than anyone here, the nature of the crimes that she has been convicted of are horrendous. And before you would cooperate somebody like that, you need to be sure they are telling the truth and you need to be sure they are giving, they're giving up information that is worth it. Otherwise it's the height of irresponsibility for a prosecutor to engage in that kind of conduct.

[John Heilemann]

Julie, the voices of the victims and survivors of Epstein and Maxwell have populated are back to the fore. And I think of you as sort of the foremost journalists on this story. But I wonder before I play their interviews if you could just tell me what you know from your reporting to be their degree of being re traumatized by all of this back in the news. Not because anybody in the Trump administration got there and said we're going to finally deliver justice to Epstein and Maxwell's victims. If they said that I haven't been able to Find it. But because this is a political scandal that Trump is trying to manage at the highest levels of government.

[Julie K. Brown]

Well, they look at this not only as, of course, a re. Traumatization of everything that they've already been through, but also another betrayal, really, because this almost seems like The Sweetheart Deal 2.0 in that there is some kind of arrangement, as Andrew mentioned, in order for them to even sit down and speak with her. And the danger of this is that are you, you're dealing with the devil here in the victim's minds, because this woman wasn't just his accomplice to many of these victims. She was the mastermind that created the whole template for how he went about operating in that she went with a chauffeur, his chauffeur, from spa to school to gym, to recruit, to just find young girls that were his type and to persuade them to come and give a wealthy man a massage. Massage which we now know weren't massages at all. And once they were in, it was hard to get out because the promises that they made, they kept dangling in front of these women who came off often from, you know, from foster homes or from situations where they didn't have money that were vulnerable, promising them they were going to, for example, send them to college or get them into fashion school or help them become a model. And then when it seemed like that wasn't happening, then saying, if you leave now, we're going to destroy any chance you have of getting into college or going to modeling school. We have the power. We have people. And he dangled all these wealthy people that he knew right in front of them, you know, photographs in his various residences of him pictured with very powerful people. So they were, they were, you know, trapped. And she started that whole pyramid scheme, so to speak, that entrapped them.

[John Heilemann]

Julie, let me play an interview with Teresa Helm and then maybe you can again, as you just did, give us more, more of the backstory. Do you worry that Maxwell will be given some kind of leniency, maybe even a pardon? What would that mean to you? I am concerned about that. And it would mean the complete crumbling of this justice system that should first and foremost stand for, fight for and protect survivors. We all deserve a pathway to justice. And then we don't deserve to have it yet again robbed from us because so much has already been taken. It doesn't seem, it truly does seem, I should say, just an upside down world where you are promised. And there are declarations of the judicial system working to support pathways to justice and for Them just to simply crumble is what it appears is happening right now. So that's again, Julie, that's the experience, in the words of one brave survivor, of watching this happen again.

[Julie K. Brown]

Yeah, this is just, you know, happened to them. Remember, this began 20 years ago. So there was, you know, 20 years worth of victims, likely hundreds and hundreds of them that went through these experiences. And you know, the other piece of this is I don't really understand why they're doing it this way. I don't really understand why they're saying they have to talk to her. Why don't they just talk to her? Why did they have to send the second in command not really do any homework? It doesn't seem like. Because they certainly didn't take. To my knowledge, they haven't spoken to any of the victims. So they haven't gotten it laid any groundwork to find out, like what can I expect when I talk to Maxwell? So I just don't understand what the end game is here.

[John Heilemann]

Tim Miller. I feel like we spend more time than we probably should trying to figure out the end game of any MAGA misadventure. I want to ask you to pick up with your theory, but I do want to show you one more interview with an Epstein survivor. This is Maria Farmer. I'm with Jen Psaki. I've never met a more predatory, terrifying human being in my entire life. And neither had Virginia Giuffre and neither has Annie or Anoushka or many girls like Shantae Davies. There's hundreds of us that were preyed upon by Ghislaine Maxwell. She's a very dangerous person and she threatened my life on many occasions. I've had to move and be in hiding because of this predatory child predator and just victim predator. So it's completely unacceptable for anyone to call her a victim. The woman is not a victim. She's a victimizer. She is a convicted felon, convicted of crimes against girls, not women, girls. And Todd Blanche just spent two days with her. Why and why do they think that this was a good thing?

[Al Sharpton]

Yeah, I mean, I couldn't have put it better than that victim just did. Maria Farmer. And this is these actions are just evil. This is a person that engaged in evil actions for decades. You know, to Julie's hundreds of victims. Think about that. Hundreds over multiple decades. She was the ringleader. She was the organizer of all this. So I just like the idea that you'd receive any leniency as preposterous. And if you ostensibly are one of the folks on the maga, right. That cared about predation against children and child sex trafficking, then you should be just out outraged and gobsmacked that the president United States would even suggest that it could be an open idea to pardon such a horrific individual. So we'll see what the, what the, you know, I'm sure we'll get kind of, you know, different responses from different corners of maga, but I think that there's what I expect that they're doing. We'll see. So this is a prediction. We can, we'll check back in next week and see if I'm wrong. But what I'm guessing is that they want to get information from her about people that were co conspirators and complicit in this that are opponents of Donald Trump. And he mentioned on the tarmac today, I believe, Bill Clinton and Larry Summers. I know nothing about whether about Larry Summers. Obviously there are plenty of pictures of Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein, but those are the names that Trump mentioned. I suspect they want her to provide some, and this is a proven liar by the way, somebody who did perjury in the past. But they want her to provide some information about people that are opponents of Trump in the hopes that they can move the news cycle on from Focus on Trump into focus on people that are political opponents and that she'll get some kind of deal in exchange. Maybe that's not what their plan is, but I think that seems like to be the most likely and they've tried the distraction strategy with whatever Obama committed Russia hoax crimes and that isn't even working in MAGA world. That's so ridiculous. So they've gotta find some other way to move the focus off of Trump. And maybe they're hoping that Jolene Maxwell can provide that or maybe they're hoping that she can provide some exoneration for Trump though I mean again, hard to see how that would actually fix the story given that there would still be a lot of remaining questions.

[John Heilemann]

I mean Andrew Weissman, I needed a theory and that is an informed one. But if that's your theory theory and that's your play, why wouldn't you ask Maureen Comey or why wouldn't you ask the victims why would you go to the pedophile on the bingo board?

[Andrew Weissman]

So I think it's important here to connect the dots with the other cases. So let's just take the Eric Adams case, Mayor Eric Adams, where this administration learned to shut out the career people. If you are trying to get the defendant, or in this case Glenn Maxwell, to say something that will help Donald Trump, if that's your goal, and it's not about sort of justice writ large, it is a continuation of your work for the president. In other words, you were his personal attorney, and you are still essentially operating as his personal attorney, if that's your goal. You do not want the career prosecutors and agents in the room for this same reason you didn't want them in the room for Eric Adams, because you're not engaging in what's in the public interest. You're engaging in what is in Donald Trump's interest, and whether that is to exonerate Donald Trump, as Tim suggested, or whether it's to implicate other people. So it's sort of a distraction. Those are things that Todd Blanch can do and can do better when he doesn't have career people in the room. But watch for this. Watch for whether there are career people, career agents and prosecutors, who write the same kind of letter and submission that we saw in the Eric Adams case, saying, what is going on stinks to high. Evan, because they know the facts. They will know whether this is a corrupt deal. They will know whether Ghislaine Maxwell should be believed in terms of what she is saying, whether you could actually even do. Just to be clear, just so people understand what's going on in my head, there is no way you can do a thorough interview and know what Ghislaine Maxwell has to offer truthfully in two days if you are not already steeped in the facts. Two days is already way too short, even if you know the facts to make that kind of judgment. And so all of that is a huge red flag. And to me, this could end up really blowing up in their face if they are doing this for the reasons Tim suggests. Because there are people here who actually do know the facts, one of whom they just fired, which is Maureen Comey. So it's not like there's going to be any love lost in terms of her, you know, trying to step up and say what is the truth and what is not the truth.

[John Heilemann]

Do you think. I mean, do you think we'll understand, Andrew, why Maureen Comey had to be fired before Top Blanche could go meet with Ghislaine Maxwell. Or do you think we'll understand whether those two public actions are connected in the near term?

[Andrew Weissman]

You know, I don't know that we will know that because it's unclear whether it's related to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell or whether it's her last name or whether it's Both. But I think in terms of this story, what we could learn from her and from other career people, remember to do a trial, it's not just Maureen Comey. There are other prosecutors and agents who know the facts here. And I think that there's a good chance that just like we did with Eric Adams, we learned a whole lot from the then U.S. attorney before she resigned. She and many others resigned in protest. And this, to me is setting up that exact scenario when you cut out career people and they see injustice happening for the same reason, you know, we're seeing, with respect to Emile Beauvais, additional whistleblowers coming out of the woodworks, because these are people who have taken an oath of office. And when they see injustice happening, that is, you know, I can speak somewhere firsthand. That is what you are there to make sure does not happen. And so I think that is what I am most focused on, is that we do have people out there who know the truth.

[John Heilemann]

All right, no one's going anywhere. Still to come more questions on this Epstein story and how it is tearing apart the Republican Party as the chaos sends more and more of the president's supporters running for the exits. Also had. Donald Trump's handpicked chairman of the FCC has greenlit a multibillion dollar deal months in the making after essentially holding the companies hostage until certain conditions were met and a payout was made. Critics are calling it a bribe, corruption, cowardly capitulation, whatever it is, there are no signs that the Trump administration is done meddling in corporate America. All those stories and more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

[Nicole Wallace]

David, in all seriousness to you, I know a lot of people that have worked with you. I know a lot of people who know you very well.

[John Heilemann]

I now consider you a friend and someone who I know pretty well. You are by far the best out there, and I'll always say yes to this podcast. We're back with Julie, Andrew and Tim. So, Tim, you're a podcaster. I am new to the space. That's how the conversations go. They become friendly. The. The charge here isn't that Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, and Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney are friendly on a podcast. The question is if the problem in the crisis is that Trump's base feels betrayed because Donald Trump is going back on a promise to release all the Epstein files and that he is protecting the elites in doing it. How does this cozy relationship between Todd Blanche and Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney aid Donald Trump in his political mission, rather urgent political mission.

[Nicole Wallace]

Yeah.

[Al Sharpton]

Andrew Weissman's kind of the Todd Blanche of my podcast, always saying yes, no matter what, because of our close friendship.

[Tim Miller]

It is weird.

[Al Sharpton]

How does it help them? I don't know. And I can understand, I guess, how you could see. And now we're getting a little bit into speculation here, but the Todd Blanche, the personal attorney of Donald Trump and then who has chosen to be deputy general, so you presume they have a trustworthy relationship and say to the president, I know this guy. I'm friends with this guy. I've been on his podcast three times. We like each other. We can go have real talk about this and maybe come up with a deal that benefits you. Who knows? And obviously that's an inappropriate conversation to have. It feels like there's a very inappropriate relationship already between the executive branch and the DOJ in this administration. So I don't think that it's hard to imagine something like that or even though it's unspoken. Todd Blanche feeling like he could leverage that relationship somewhat to benefit them politically.

[Tim Miller]

It does.

[Al Sharpton]

And this is more in Andrew's wheelhouse, but, like, it just is. Just. I mean, the perception, at minimum, is that this is deeply corrupt. And it is a deeply troubling perception. The idea that this deputy attorney general, who did not oversee this case, would be the point person to go have this conversation with the child sex trafficker and his and her lawyer because they have a friendship and that they wouldn't include the actual experts in the case from the DOJ and the actual lawyers to have a. Whatever, a more. A more realistic conversation about the facts and what she knows. So, I mean, I do think the perception is pretty scummy.

[John Heilemann]

Speaking of scummy, I want to come back to you, Julie, and ask you what part of this story is surprising as someone who centered your journalism around the victims and around the abusers. I mean, this is thrust into the news because Elon Musk tweeted on his social media platform that Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. And it in some ways accelerated the political fire that was sort of in the form of embers in the MAGA base, the betrayal a lot of MAGA voters felt when Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, who had talked about releasing the files for years and years, went along with Pam Bondi's memo that said, there's nothing to see here. I mean, those are the sort of the public facing news events that have thrust us back into the limelight. But for folks like yourself who've covered this story for years and years and years. And the hundreds of victims you talked about who were victimized over years and years and years. What part of this story at this point surprises you?

[Julie K. Brown]

Well, I think that the most unfortunate part about this is that now we're not talking about a crime. This was something I think almost everybody, depending no matter what your political vantage point was, could agree was a horrible crime against young girls who are underage and young women. I think everybody agreed that Epstein pretty much was a monster. And so now we've gone from understanding that this is a travesty of justice to now with the president at some points calling it a hoax. And to go from point A, that this is a travesty of justice, to this is a hoax that's being perpetuated by the Democrats. It makes no sense to me because we know that there are victims here. We know that there was a crime committed. We have evidence. There's tons of court records that the Miami Herald has unsealed over the years that show that this happened. So it's surprising to me that there are people in MAGA world who, who A, are sort of following this hoax wagon and B, even a couple people, I think last night mentioned that Maxwell might be a quote, unquote, victim, which is ludicrous. So the way that the truth in our country right now seems to be manipulated on social media and in other forums is alarming, quite frankly, to me.

[John Heilemann]

What are the victims? And I know they're not a monolith, but what do some of the victims hope to see here? Are they rooting for what at different times? I guess at all times, the Democrats seem to be rooting for at this point, at different times, different figures in the MAGA media ecosystem have said they wanted, and that is full transparency. And Kash Patel, I would say, said this once. House Republicans, put on your big boy pants and tell us who the pedophiles are. I mean, what. What do the victims want?

[Julie K. Brown]

I think they want other people brought to justice who were involved. They know as well as most people who follow the case closely know that there were others that were involved in this, not only helping him with his schedule and getting visas for girls who came from overseas and just the whole apparatus that he had set up for this trafficking, but also the men that were involved, other men and other, you know, people who. Who were abusing some of these girls and young women. So I think what they would like to see is that the Justice Department take this very seriously. And the answer, quite frankly, would have been an easy one from the get go for Pam Bondi, which would have been, instead of shutting the door, just saying, look, there's so we looked at this carefully now and there are so many questions here that we feel we have to continue to investigate. And that would have been an understandable avenue to take rather than to just say, forget it, we're shutting the whole thing down. Nothing to see here. I think that that is what sows mistrust in our government.

[John Heilemann]

Julie Brown, Andrew Weissman and Tim Miller, thank you all so much for spending time with us on these developments. One more thing before this wraps. Tim is my guest on the next episode of the Best People Podcast. Our conversation is available early. Right now, just scan the QR code on your screen and subscribe to MSNBC Premium if you want to listen to it today. Up next for us, understanding the FCC's decision to finally approve an $8.4 billion merger. Look at the timeline and some of the convenient settlements that made it all come together. We'll bring you that reporting next.

[David Axelrod]

Need to restock inventory, cover seasonal dips, or manage payroll? OnDeck's small business line of credit provides immediate access to funds up to $100,000.

[Julie K. Brown]

Exactly when your business needs it.

[David Axelrod]

With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and full control over repayment, you can tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. Apply [e-mail] and funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck, Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans an amount subject to lender approval.

[Nicole Wallace]

Some say Odoo business management software is like fertilizer because of the way it promotes growth. Some say Odoo is like a magic beanstalk, scaling with you while being magically affordable. And some say Odoo's programs for manufacturing, accounting and more are like building blocks for creating a custom software suite. But I say Odoo is all of it. Fertilizer, Magic Beanstalk Business building blocks for business. Yeah, Odoo. Exactly what every business needs. Sign [e-mail] that's O-O-O.com possibility means you have a chance. Passion opens the door to all possibilities.

[John Heilemann]

When I feel like anything's possible, I feel kind of giddy. I want to be an astronaut, artist, an actress to visit another country.

[Al Sharpton]

All I need is a backpack and a pair of shoes and I'll find.

[John Heilemann]

A way I'm able to do anything.

[Julie K. Brown]

I set my mind to.

[Tracy Feithlove]

I've never felt like more things are.

[Nicole Wallace]

Possible than right now.

[John Heilemann]

In the right shoes, anything's possible. Dsw, countless shoes at bragworthy prices. Imagine the possibilities. Just after our show ended yesterday, news broke that the FCC had approved the merger of Paramount and Skydance Media, capping off a July that has been chock full of capitulation at CBS and their parent company, Paramount. The month started with Paramount agreeing to pay Donald Trump $16 million in an effort to settle his frivolous lawsuit against 60 Minutes for its interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris, followed by the news last week that the network is canceling the Late show, hosted by Stephen Colbert, which Trump has said he was happy to play a role in. Earlier in the week, after shaking down Paramount for $16 million, attorneys for Trump and the network agreed the lawsuit was over, clearing the way for Trump's handpicked FCC chairman to approve Skydance's acquisition of Paramount. The Trump administration's weaponization of the fcc, an organization which throughout its entire existence has been apolitical, kept the long expected merger in peril and has sent a chilling effect through the media world and the corporate world as it contends with this new Trumpian normal. As the Trump administration is intent on extracting power, influence and money from mergers like this one, the lone dissenting voice at the fcc, Anna Gomez, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, issued a scathing rebuke of the merger, saying this, quote, after months of cowardly capitulation to this administration, Paramount finally got what it wanted. Unfortunately, it is the American public who will ultimately pay the price for its actions, end quote. Joining our conversation is President of Media Matters for America, Angelo Carazone and President of Brilliant Corners Research, MSNBC political analyst Cornell Belcher. Let me ask both of you your reaction to not just the approval of the merger, but where we are. I mean, south park is also in this new merged entity. And we led the five o' clock with its satire of Donald Trump and its physical depictions of the things he's made clear are the things he's most insecure about. Where exactly are we, Angelo, right now?

[Cornell Belcher]

I mean, we're at the beginning stages of a massive transformation of and a closure of and a reduction in civic spaces. Whether or not Trump and Carr, who's the FCC chairman and the rest of Project 2025's acolytes will be able to execute and fully implement that change is up to all of us. But we are at the beginning of that. And there are plenty of examples, one after the other, of, as Commissioner Gomez described it, cowardly capitulation and, you know, I mean, that trend isn't going away. It's only increasing. And on the flip side of that, capitulation has been an increase in threats, not just from Commissioner Carr, but elsewhere, to leverage the power of government to pressure business entities into caving or giving them what they want. I'll give one example before I turn it over to Cornell. You know, the FTC recently approved a merger between two of the largest media buyers. And one of the conditions of that approval was that the media buyers would no longer remove ads or place advertisements based off of political or ideological considerations. I mean, that's an outrageous action for them to do. Totally unprecedented. But they made it clear that if they wanted that deal to go through, no more saying you won't advertise on certain extremist kind of content. And that's one small example. So we're at the beginning of a larger change, and right now we see a lot of examples of it happening.

[John Heilemann]

Not a lot of backbone. Cornell, what are your thoughts in this moment?

[Nicole Wallace]

Well, I gotta agree with Angela. I can't. Look, I think he put it perfectly. So I'm going to go in a bit different direction. But first I also want to point out the fact that, look, also in this deal which stuck out to me was that was what they were bragging about, was no DEI programs, right? So you have crony capitalism and corruption, but also always with a little taste of white nationalism thrown in Dubuque. But I want to go in a different direction in this, Nicole, because we talk about how the system is rigged, and I hear voters talk about a rigged system all the time and how it's hard for them to win in a rigged system. This is an example of the crony capitalism. This is an example of the rich and wealthy rigging the system and Donald Trump being a part of the rigging of that system. So I'm tired of talking about sort of how corrupt and bad these people are, because, frankly, it's like saying, why are the foxes in the henhouses eating the hens? Right? At some point you gotta say, hey, hens, you gotta stop empowering these foxes who are coming into the henhouse and eating you. Right? I hope we do have a movement now. When you look at what's been happening in our government and just look at the level of corruption and how the system is being rigged. Like, we spent weeks talking about how, quite frankly, the big beautiful bill is moving large, vast amounts of resources away from working class people towards the rich people. And this is just another example of how the system is rigged by the wealthy and the powerful and the well connected. And at some point the American people have to wake up and say, say no to the rigged system. Because you, the American people, you really do have the power to at least put a hurdle in front of the rigging of the system. That is, that is undermining your democracy and undermining your economic opportunity.

[John Heilemann]

What seems clear to me from the outside is that the brands that made this company valuable are the brands that, that seem to be cannibalized in doing the deal because the brands were value. I mean, the short sightedness is what's stunning to me. I know nothing about business. I've never thrived in corporate America. I had a PR job for 10 minutes and I absolutely sucked at it. So I'm not saying that this doesn't make sense and I see something all these masters of the universe don't. But just as a consumer of media, it seems like an absolutely asinine strategy to completely destroy the 60 Minutes brand and completely destroy the late night brand as reflections of this insane media moment. And even if you're the frothiest, most sort of psyched maga person, you don't think this moment's going to last forever. It's too weird, even for them. So I wonder, Angela, what you think the long game is here.

[Cornell Belcher]

I mean, your question makes me think about whenever you watch a dystopian film or read a book that looks at dystopian, you know, the, the media, the, the, you know, the stuff that people consume, it's always monotone and gray. And that's what you just described is the, is the process by which, yes, it is monotone and gray. That's not really their consideration. What their consideration is, is, is getting, is using that information ecosystem to draw, to get power and also revenge. We're in the revenge stage right now. And that's the other part of this. So yeah, that's the thing I don't understand too, is that, that ultimately these are companies that have fiduciaries. They have responsibilities to create good content that gets the widest possible reach. And the decision they're making is extraordinarily short term, but it's also baking in a calculation and an assumption. And that's the thing that really scares me because they are making a business decision and they're saying this is going to be the new norm. Our competitors, they're going to do the same thing. They are banking on the fact that, that their peers are also going to get rid of content get rid of controversial programming, water down and dilute their programming. Right. And I know just like Jimmy Kimmel, they already, Trump is out there starting to go after Jimmy Kimmel next because. And they're making assumptions that their competitors are going to start to do similar things so that they're not really losing a competitive advantage. And as you point out with south park, it's not going to be a one and done. It's not a light switch. It's a transition. There are going to be those flares and moments where internally people rally and push back, where there are opportunities to show and demonstrate. That doesn't mean there won't be consequences for it, but those are the things that we have to latch onto too. So that's. It is extraordinarily stupid business decision, assuming that the regular market is going to function. But the part that scares me is they're trying to change the marketplace too.

[John Heilemann]

Yeah, I guess I think that there has to be an assumption that there's some under certain market. But if you're looking for that, there's tons of that. That market is flooded. It is flooded in the, in the, in the cable TV with Fox and all of their copycat networks. It's flooded in the podcast world. So I don't know, I don't know what they think they're serving, but we'll see. I need you guys to stick around. There's much more to talk about on the other side of a short break. We'll be right back. Did you want to see the Colbert Report go away in order to approve this deal? Was that part of the decision?

[Nicole Wallace]

Well, look, it's clear to me that.

[Cornell Belcher]

Colbert doesn't have it anymore.

[John Heilemann]

It's sort of sad to see what's happening to Colbert.

[Mike Schmidt]

They obviously can't get it done.

[Nicole Wallace]

They're not making money over there.

[John Heilemann]

But I think they need a course correction.

[Nicole Wallace]

And frankly, I think, you know, the media industry across this country needs a course correction.

[John Heilemann]

The most interesting thing there is he doesn't say yes or no. Cornell. And so sort of in thei've spent a lot of time last four weeks trying to understand what I missed about the Epstein conspiracy theories that totally animate maga. I mean, there is no one is questioning the complete thumb under which the FCC has all the parties in this merger. Why not answer that question? I mean, he certainly left the door open to the fact that this was a condition which has not ever been reported anywhere. But it's an interesting way to even talk about your past. It is.

[Nicole Wallace]

And the ramble on about how, you know, Colbert has lost it when literally the number one late night show in the country, but he's lost it. Look, there's, there's something more sinister here, right? Because it is, it really is right out of the fascist playbook. Look, it's about controlling the cultural pillars of our society that define, that tell the stories that define who we are. Right. I think you can connect the dot with this along with the defunding of PBS and defunding of unbiased voices that are out there. And it is about ultimately sort of control and ability to find who we are and more importantly define who we are not. And I know we said often enough, but this playbook is an old one and they're playing it right in front of our faces.

[Andrew Weissman]

Right?

[Nicole Wallace]

This is about, this is, this isn't about money so much. This isn't about money so much as it is about fundamentally control of who we are and who we are not. And I think money is on the back end of that conversation. But first and foremost it's about controlling who we are and defining who we are not. And that is really scary.

[John Heilemann]

It's scary and it's difficult to pull off. I mean, South Park's depiction of Donald Trump penis slipped through the cracks. And So I think Mr. Carr is going to have some answering to do if he wants to depict himself as all powerful. We have one more question for you, Angela. We have to sneak in a quick break. We'll do it on the other side. Angelo, I want to ask you to pick up on this idea of power and projections of power. Puck has a headline that I don't want to misquote. It says, David Ellison and the people politics of South Park. David Ellison, of course, Larry Ellison's son, a huge MAGA fan and Trump supporter. His son is, is the buyer. It's an important part of the story, but just on the perception side. There will now be a perception, at least on the part of Donald Trump, that he's in charge. How do you deal with the customer, the end user, the American consumer and Donald Trump at the same time?

[Cornell Belcher]

I mean, that's the real tension here, right? In fact, the part of the problem here is that the customer, because they're based in audiences, are so manifest, so multifold, it just basically tells them, yeah, Donald Trump is in charge. They validated that narrative. And that's the problem with these early days here, is that power perceived as power achieved. And so you can, they can, they don't have to win every single fight. They throw a lot of things out there, but each time, especially when it's totally needless or without any act of defiance, Right. It's just if you immediately comply, complicit, just completely cave right away, you fuel that power. You turn something that is a figment into a reality. And then worse, you start to supersize it. So I think the audience, some of them will trickle, but I think they're all kind of changing businesses. They're all sandwiched between realities. And there's so much changing in the media landscape right now, and I don't know how long term their, their visions are. I think the fear of Trump and the figment of Trump is so big that I think many decision makers are just trying to go along to get along. And that seems to be very much what was at play here, which is fascinating.

[John Heilemann]

Trump's at 37% approval rating. He's a lame duck. And it's a massive company to shove down the sieve For a president, 37% approval rating who comes in as a lame duck. But these are, if nothing else, interesting times. Angelo and Cornell, thank you both so much for spending time with us today. On it. Up next for us, is anyone going to let the Epstein story go away in either party? We'll ask that question next. The next hour of deadline, White House starts after a short break.

[Tracy Feithlove]

Need to restock inventory, cover seasonal dips, or manage payroll. On Deck's small business line of credit provides immediate access to funds up to $100,000 exactly when your business needs it. It with flexible draws, transparent pricing and full control over repayment, you can tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. Apply [e-mail] and funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondeck does not land in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

[Nicole Wallace]

Some say Odoo business management software is like fertilizer because of the way it promotes growth. Some say Odoo is like a magic beanstalk scaling with you while being magically affordable. And some say Odoo's programs for manufacturing, accounting and more are like building blocks for creating a custom software suite. But I say Odoo is all of it. Fertilizer, magic beanstalk building blocks for business. Yeah, Odoo, exactly what every business needs. Sign [e-mail] that's o-o o.com.

[John Heilemann]

I'Ve never felt like this before. It's like you just get me.

[David Axelrod]

I feel like my true self with you.

[John Heilemann]

Does that sound crazy? And it doesn't hurt that you're gorgeous. Okay, that's it. I'm taking you home with me.

[David Axelrod]

I mean, you can't find shoes this good just anywhere.

[John Heilemann]

Find a shoe for every you from.

[David Axelrod]

Brands you love like Birkenstock, Nike, Adidas.

[John Heilemann]

And more at your dsw store or dsw.com.

[Al Sharpton]

So what I've told people always.

[Tracy Feithlove]

Week the Republicans on the House Oversight Committee have been very interested in this Epstein ordeal for, for weeks now.

[Al Sharpton]

And I, I told Mike Johnson that.

[Tracy Feithlove]

Our members wanted to pursue that.

[Al Sharpton]

So it's not like there was any.

[Tracy Feithlove]

Cover up from the Republicans on the.

[Al Sharpton]

House Oversight Committee because our, our guys.

[Tracy Feithlove]

Really want to know.

[John Heilemann]

We want to know, but we're going home anyway. Hi again Everybody. It's not 5 o' clock Clark in the east. Quote, our guys really want to know. That is Republican Congressman James Comer of Kentucky signaling that the fervor for more information, the need to know, if you will, on the Epstein files, is definitely not going away in his view anytime soon. But this week saw a Republican Party flee a party pulled apart. One side wanting McComber side full transparency, the other one desperate to give Donald Trump another lifeline get out of jail free card and avoid this story. And acting on what the MAGA base wants at all costs, Politico has new in depth reporting on what they describe as a, quote, House GOP conference in full rebellion over the spiraling Jeffrey Epstein situation. The reporting lays out what happened that essentially forced Speaker Mike Johnson's hand. Quote, Rules Committee chair Virginia Fox of North Carolina and panel member Aaron Houchen of Indiana informed House leaders that Republicans on the panel would not advance any rule for the week, the prerequisite for the chamber to fully function without a better solution to the Epstein problem. That's according to two people with direct knowledge of the conversation. The lawmakers knew that bucking their own leadership was an extreme response. But panel Republicans were incensed that a week earlier they were all but forced to vote against a Democratic effort calling for the release of Epstein related information. Many, including Hauschin, were under intense pressure from constituents to support the unsealing and they wanted leaders to provide more political cover. Speaker Johnson, we now know then, chose not to fight with the Rules Committee and started the House's August recess, what Senator Chuck Schumer dubbed the Epstein recess days early to avoid going on the record. Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, speaking at a summit of Democratic mayors earlier today, called out the hypocrisy he's witnessing from the GOP and took aim specifically at the Vice President. He referenced what JD Vance had posted as a Senate candidate in December of 2021. If you are a journalist and you're not asking questions about this case, you should be ashamed of yourself. What purpose do you even serve? I'm sure there's a middle class teenager somewhere who could use some harassing right now, but maybe try to do your job once in a while. Kana then shot back, quote, maybe you should be doing your job now. You were passionate about this issue when you were asking people in this state for their vote. What happened? End quote. Democrats leaning in to the Epstein file. Chaos as Republicans are floundering. All while Donald Trump's support with his own voters continues to plunge in the polls. New York Times reporting this, quote, while 40% of Republicans approve of Trump's handling of the release of the files on Epstein, more than a third of them, 36%, disapprove. That's according to a poll from Quinnipiac University. That is perhaps the most intraparty discontent Donald Trump has experienced as president. That is where we start the hour with Congresswoman Madeline Dean of Pennsylvania. Also joining us, host of MSNBC's Politics Nation and President of the National Action Network, the Reverend Al Sharpton. And Puck News chief political columnist, MSNBC national affairs analyst John Heilman is here for the hour. Congresswoman, one of the hallmarks of Trumpism is the complete control he has over elected Republicans. It's why things that used to be easy in your chamber are now next to impossible. Because if Donald Trump doesn't want them done, the Republicans don't do it. Which makes the polling that shows 36% of Republicans unhappy with his handling of Epstein stunning. In this particular political moment, does it seem to be loosening the grip he has over Republican House members? You reap what you sow. The President and his courtiers have stoked the conspiracy theories around Epstein and the Epstein files, promising to deliver the files that were sitting on the new Attorney General's desk. So you reap what you sow, then suddenly nothing to see here. I don't care about this politically whatsoever. What I do care about are the victims and the truth. Why wouldn't we want to get at the truth and do justice for the victims? To your first point around the Republicans, I spent the better part of this week, until session was canceled, in Appropriations, they are in lockstep. The Republicans on the Appropriations Committee are in lockstep with this president. I could not get them to do anything on the Suffering the starvation, the catastrophe that is Gaza. They are absolute lemmings who have just followed this president right off a cliff. I don't see it. They've been drained of their congressional authority and they've been drained of their humanity by this president. They should just call for the releasing of the files and then let's focus on what really matters. John Halman. I mean that is the two sided coin of what it means to be a Republican in the side of Trump. You do things that completely violate all of your past principles. It is not conservative to be for the blanket tariff regime that he announced on whatever it was called. Was it called Independence Day? I don't remember what he called it. It is not conservative to be against supporting Ukraine militarily and robustly and sharing intel. They've capitulated. But the other end of the coin in Republican telling was that they, they'd, I don't know his political superpowers would attach to them. He's at 37% and plunging like a stone. What do you see or what are you watching for in this moment?

[Tracy Feithlove]

Well, I believe it was Liberation Day, Nicole. Liberation Day.

[John Heilemann]

Thank you.

[Tracy Feithlove]

Defendants say.

[John Heilemann]

Yeah, I mean thank you.

[Tracy Feithlove]

Even Trump didn't try to, didn't even try to move July 4 to a different day.

[John Heilemann]

Yet.

[Tracy Feithlove]

And I take the not yet right. I know, don't speak too soon. I take Congresswoman Dean's point. However, however, we did see three very MAGA Republicans on that oversight subcommittee decide to vote to subpoena the Justice Department department to release the Epstein files on Wednesday. I believe it was. That is a small, you could say that's a small thing. But you know, you wouldn't have necessarily expected Nancy Mace and company to openly defy Donald Trump in that way and vote to issue that subpoena when Trump is clearly resisting disclosure in the way he is. So I do agree that you know Mike Johnson certainly and if the leaders leadership level of the party there was this early thing where they were afraid that their, that their voters would be mad about this. We're mad about the lack of disclosure and the nothing to see here approach of the Trump administration. But then Mike Johnson very quickly hightailed it back under Donald Trump's wing. But it seems like people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mason, some of these other hardcore MAGA Republicans, at least on this issue, and maybe only on this issue, are willing to defy stand up to President Trump to, to stick to their guns on an issue that I think a lot of their voters, especially these MAGA Congress people, who came in, in the last couple of Congresses. A lot of them ran on. On QAnon related themes. A lot of them ran on Jeffrey Epstein. And some of them, I think, understand that their politics here have suddenly diverted from Donald Trump's. They used to think they were in perfect alignment because Trump was all with. With was all for the Epstein conspiracy theories when it helped him get reelected. Now their politics are diverging. And as they diverge and as you say, as his approval rating falls and we head towards the midterms, that is what I'm watching. That is where that is going to head when we get on the other side of this recess and we come back. And I would expect, I won't predict, but I would expect the pressure for disclosure is not going to have diminished significantly over the month of August. If anything, it may actually escalate.

[John Heilemann]

Yeah, I mean, rev, the whole formula of leaving Washington to avoid something is predicated on a crisis that's associated with Washington. The Epstein crisis is associated with wherever you were most radicalized to be, in line ideologically and passionately with QAnon and where it intersects with MAGA. So I actually think the idea of going home is politically catastrophic. That's where your voters who are most passionate about these things are going to want to hear from you and hear answers. And I wonder what you make of not just the betrayal of the MAGA base over the release of the Epstein files, but the political malpractice that everyone from Donald Trump to Speaker Johnson are engaged in.

[Tim Miller]

I can only believe that it shows how rattled the president is for whatever reasons, and how Johnson and them are really not thinking this through. They're reacting to a rattled president. That's putting a lot of pressure on them because why would you want to take someone out of the pot and put them into the fire? And that's what you're doing, sending them home. Because at home is where the people are going to be really disruptive if you have town hall meetings not only about the big beautiful bill, but about this. The people were told that elitist Democrats were doing all kinds of things to children. Now, as people were told over and over again, people built careers, they built podcasts, they built an industry around this. People got elected around this, this. And don't listen to them telling you there's nothing there. They're hiding and protecting the elite. There's something there. There's something there. Then you get in power and you say there's nothing there. So, I mean, they have become the victims of their own plot. And I think that I'm not even going to speculate on how many times Trump is mentioned in what capacity. I'm talking about the bare facts that they promised to deliver something that they're now saying there's nothing to deliver. So the question anybody can raise, some of the Oath Keepers are raising were you lying then or are you lying now? And they put themselves in that position.

[John Heilemann]

I want to show you, Congresswoman, something Ezra Klein said on a podcast we've been paying close attention to, to flagrant podcast. This is comedian Andrew Schultz who became, who was, who supported Donald Trump in the 2024 election. But for the last few weeks he's said things like, what did he think we were stupid? He donned a tinfoil hat. He's really poking at this lack of transparency. Here's what Ezra Klein said on his podcast.

[Nicole Wallace]

I read all the Epstein coverage and.

[Tracy Feithlove]

Went back and talked to people who.

[Nicole Wallace]

Knew more about it than I did.

[Andrew Weissman]

And I, I come to the view that you could explain away most of it.

[Tracy Feithlove]

And then Mike Johnson recessed Congress rather.

[Andrew Weissman]

Than even allow a vote on it.

[Tracy Feithlove]

And it's really hard to believe there.

[Nicole Wallace]

Isn'T something weird when the people with.

[Andrew Weissman]

Power are acting that weirdly.

[John Heilemann]

I mean, Congresswoman, there's, I mean, this is the oldest cliche ever, but it proves true more often than it doesn't. It's always the COVID up that gets you in more political trouble than the crime. I mean, what is your theory of what they're doing? They're flailing. They don't know what they're doing and they're afraid of their own constituents. My phones were ringing nonstop around this issue as well as the big ugly bill. They obviously have something to hide or the president is afraid of something. Something. And what they are doing is what the reverend said at the behest of the rich and powerful. They're covering stuff up again. The victims are what matters here. When you saw DOJ go interview Ghislaine Maxwell and come out glowingly about her, did you see that interview or that Mike moment, proud of her. She answered all these questions. This is a DOJ that is in the pocket of Donald Trump. That's not how it's supposed to be. I think your panel is correct. We're back in the district. I'm back in my district. Our constituents are very upset and I bet the Republicans are meeting the very same thing over the bill, over the economy, over tariffs, over the budget, over Epstein. The president with all his legislative wins, hot water and where is he today? He's over opening a golf course instead of solving some of the most serious problems that this country and the world faces. Ukraine, Gaza. He should be releasing the dog on files. There should be nothing to be afraid of. And he should be solving some of the big issues instead of lining his own pocket. You know, John, I've done what Ezra talked about doing. You and I have talked about it on your podcast guests. I mean, I've gone back and read a lot of the reporting. I read a lot of Julie K. Brown's reporting. I've tried to sort of reeducate myself about how this became so passion stirring in MAGA and Cunan. And what I don't understand is why. I mean, Jim Jordan's weaponization Committee looked at everything. I mean, they never really tried as elected Republicans to have the files released until the Trump administration said, there's nothing to see here. I mean, all the old tricks seem to be failing because the genesis of this is all in that MAGA bubble. If you agree with that, I mean, how do you think they get out of this?

[Tracy Feithlove]

Oh, God, I have no idea. Nicole. And I would say, you know, the pressure's been building, right? The timing of this was you had, you know, Epstein is arrested and jailed in the second half of Trump's first term. We then had, at the end, obviously, Covid kind of consumed our consciousness in all of 2020. Then you basically have these four years where Trump is not in office and the podcast boom is happening. And a lot of these people that Rev was talking about who have built followings and fortunes on stirring up these conspiracies, we're riding that wave throughout those four years and making these promises about what would happen if Donald Trump got put back in power. And I think that's why it's like there's been this building up of pressure among those who are either on the far end of the QAnon world or at the place where Maga and QAnon intersect and people who have become gripped by this obsession with pedophilia that occupies a lot of the right. And now is the moment. And very quickly, you will recall we've talked about it a whole bunch of times. The attorney General came out and said, we're gonna do this thing. Here's my white binder. We're gonna be the most transparent administration in history. So if you lay out the timeline, it makes sense that this is now the moment of truth. How do you get out of this? I really don't know, because it comes back to the thing you and I have been talking about, about over this period of time Congresswoman Dean talked about, and Ezra Klein and Yuval, we've all talked about this. They are behaving. When I say they, I mean President Trump, Dan Bongino, Cash Patel and the Attorney General are all behaving as if there is something to hide. We don't know what that is and we don't know exactly why they're doing what they're doing. But the prima facie case is that they do not want to disclose something. And if you do not want to disclose something, it usually is because. Because there's some way in which it will damage them or will damage Donald Trump. And given the amount of political capital he's squandering with his base, and he's not just, you know, hurting and causing this thing to consume his administration, being a huge distraction, getting in the way of anything else that on his agenda, seeing people on his base turn away from him, announce their betrayal of him, he went so far, not only did he try to distract us in variety of ways, he attacked his own base and called them stupid and said he didn't want their support. That is a guy who thinks, I mean, again, just logically speaking, that's a guy who's willing to accept a lot of political pain. And the reason that you accept political pain is because the alternative path would be even more painful. So again, what is it that is down that path that Donald Trump is afraid of? We can all speculate, but the behavior kind of, ipso facto kind of explains itself. And if you're, if people are saying, well, just release it all, there's nothing burger in there. If that were true, I imagine Donald Trump would happily have released all this material. So is there an easy way out of this corner? I don't see it. Maybe a teleportation device or time travel or something, but other than that, a cloaking device, the invisible visible man comes to town? I don't know, but I'm not seeing an obvious way out of this for anybody who has anything to hide. And again, I say it looks right now like that's Donald Trump.

[John Heilemann]

You know, we talk a lot about his problems with the base. Here's his poll numbers with independents. It's down to 29%, a 17 point decline since January. So he has lost independence in the largest. And that's a lot of factors, including the way the immigration policies have played out, it's economic anxiety and it's the handling of the Epstein files.

[Tim Miller]

Absolutely. And I think that one of the things that is most noteworthy is he's lost the ability to change the story. Usually when he'd face something negative, he could change the story. And he tried this week. I mean, he tried to say he was going to fire the Fed chair, then he wasn't. He was going to do this or that with some legislation, then he wasn't. He released Martin Luther King's files, then he wasn't. He wanted Barack Obama indicted, then he wasn't. Nothing worked. Now he goes off to Scotland on a trip that's going to cost taxpayers $10 million for his golf course in Scotland while he denies there's nothing there about the elite. Talking about, would you be taking an elitist trip to your golf tournament while your people are saying what happened to the stuff you were telling us about elitist and pedophilia? So I think that if I were advising him, I would say repent and pray. I'm a minister.

[John Heilemann]

It's an unbelievable, it's an unbelievable moment that has brought us to even have this conversation. And for that I'm grateful to all three of you. Congresswoman Madeline Dean and the Reverend Al Sharpton, thank you for starting us off. John sticks around a little bit longer at his own peril. When we come back, how scouring the Epstein files has consumed the Department of Justice. There's brand new reporting about how hundreds of FBI and DOJ employees worked around the clock to find something, anything they could find that they could release to tamp down the political crisis. The anger seeping out from among Donald Trump's own base of support. We'll bring you that news story next. Plus, as elite law firms cave to Donald Trump, how a legion of smaller firms jumped into the fight to stop his all out assault on the rights of Americans and the rule of law. One of the lawyers coordinating that effort will be our guest later in the broadcast deadline. Whitehouse continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

[Andrew Weissman]

There is an unwillingness to let things go once they've been resolved and finished. That, just as so many other things.

[Nicole Wallace]

The FBI is doing right now is.

[Andrew Weissman]

Drawing resources and attention away from its core missions.

[John Heilemann]

That was former FBI agent Michael Feinberg warning about the consequences of FBI and Justice Department leadership focusing the attention of the entire department on conspiracy theories like the one consuming the Justice Department right now, the Epstein files debacle. The New York Times reports that this spring, quote, the FBI and the Justice Department made an all out push involving hundreds of employees to scour the Jeffrey Epstein files with a single goal in find something, anything that could be released to the public to satisfy the mounting clamor from the angry legions of President Trump's supporters, adding that the search of the files was a, quote, frenetic scramble to sort more than 100,000 pages of materials related to Mr. Epstein. During the inquiry, Justice Department officials diverted hundreds of FBI employees, attorneys and federal prosecutors from their regular duties to go through the documents at least four times, including once to flag any references to Mr. Trump and other prominent figures. Despite that all out effort, the New York Times reports the department failed to turn up any new information. Joining our coverage is investigative reporter for the New York Times, Mike Schmidt. John Halman is here as well. Mike, this, this story pulls back the curtain on everything that the Justice Department and FBI tried to do pre debacle. How does it correlate to what is happening now? I mean, is this why Todd Blanche is down talking to Ghislaine Maxwell, because there was nothing they had in the building that they could release? Or how does this tie to their decision making now?

[Mike Schmidt]

I think when you look at that story and you look at the reporting of my colleagues, you can see that a lot of this hasn't really been well thought out. So I'm not ready to give any sort of credence to the idea that them going down to interview her is some sort of way of getting evidence that they don't have so they could put it out. I think that they're looking to come up with anything to divert from this and that could potentially pacify or, you know, the, the base that is, that has gone so been so crazed about this. I think that the, the larger, that's obviously the biggest problem that they have. But a secondary problem that you sort of hit at at the top of this is that there is a larger risk here and it's a political risk. And it may not actually turn out to be a problem where you're, you're announcing and it's getting out there publicly that you're devoting FBI resources to this, to trying to get to something. And if something horrific were to happen, it would put the Bureau in a very difficult spot because that's a very easy narrative for the average to understand that the bureau was distracted. The bureau was spending time on this issue trying to figure out how to deal with explaining a conspiracy theory and was sending the deputy Attorney general off to do things. But not just the deputy Attorney general. Dozens and dozens of agents have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours working on this. So I think in that sense, and the Trump Justice Department's headed down a lot of different paths to try to explain conspiracies over, you know, his first term and now his second term. And they never really paid a political price in terms of having to explain why the resources were used that way. They may be able to get away with that now, but it is a risk and it's a secondary problem to the larger issue that they have with their base.

[John Heilemann]

Well, and actually, it is a big distinction. I mean, they, John Hallman, at least in the first, John Durham was brought in as a special sort of unit to investigate the investigators, and after spending close to $8 million, really resulted in nothing. But Bill Barr maybe was a stronger figure. Maybe he was. And there wasn't anyone more of a sycophant to Donald Trump. But he didn't allow the fleecing of his department. His entire staff didn't go work on immigration operations, and they did spend all these hours going through EPC files. I mean, what is your reaction to this? Sense. And a lot of people, a lot of former national security folks are deeply worried about how vulnerable the country is.

[Tracy Feithlove]

Well, right. There's two things here, Nicole. One of them goes back to the conversation we were having before the break, which is, again, if you're making all the prima facie case for why it appears that Donald Trump is. He's clearly feels as though he has something to hide. Again, we don't know what that is, but all of his behavior indicates that, that he is scared of what full disclosure would bring for him, what the political cost of that or the personal cost of that would be. This is another thing to add to the list. You don't tell your FBI to deploy dozens of hundreds. I don't know how many agents that they deployed to go searching through the millions, I assume, of pages of Epstein file documentation to try to flag Trump's name and see what's in there. Unless you're nervous about it.

[John Heilemann]

Right.

[Tracy Feithlove]

So this is another thing on that list. It's another thing that points to the notion that Trump is that his behavior here is motivated by fear of what the truth would bring. The second thing is, on the point that you and Mike are kind of chiming in on here is this is worse than the, in the hypothetical, if something bad happens, what was the FBI doing instead of focusing on the thing that would have prevented that bad thing from happening? Mike Stiller said, well, that would look bad for the FBI if they were off chasing information about a conspiracy theory. It'll look even worse for the FBI of what they were doing in going down to talk to Ghislaine Maxwell is to try to protect Donald Trump. And again, we don't know fully what this whole Ghilaine Maxwell intercession with Todd Blanche is all about, but if some of the theories that were spout, that were proposed earlier in the day in the first hour of your show by some of our friends turn out to be true, that what this is is not even just a fishing expedition to try to find something you can throw, to satisfy, throw overboard to satisfy the base, but rather is intended to be a political, political defense operation. What can we get Ghislaine Maxwell to say that will exonerate Donald Trump in advance from, from what might be in these files, that in the circumstance that Mike laid out where something really bad happens, where the FBI is asleep at the switch, that would be even worse politically because it would look like not just you're chasing conspiracy theories, but you're working essentially on Donald Trump's behalf and trying to serve just the president's political interests rather than the country.

[John Heilemann]

It's so interesting that all the things Trump did to protect himself from any criminal scrutiny or exposure are now creating or contributing to the gravest political threat in his, in his two terms or what? I have to sneak in a break. John Hellman, thank you for being here for so much of the hour. Mike sticks around a little bit longer. When we come back, as top law firms cut deals to avoid being punished by Donald Trump, we'll turn to this story, how an army of little guys, smaller law firms and solo attorneys stepped up to take him on. One of the lawyers helping to lead that fight will be our next guest. Don't go anywhere. The tsunami of lawsuits against the Trump administration as they go about trampling constitutional rights didn't go away as he might have hoped or strategized, even after big law firms cut deals with the Trump White House to avoid any punishment by his administration. And that is largely thanks to legal nonprofits, including an army of small firm lawyers, solo practitioners and former government litigators, leaders who have eagerly volunteered to fill that void. From the New York Times reporting this week, quote, as opponents of the White House's policies organized to fight Mr. Trump in court on a vast range of actions and policies, they quickly found that they did not need to rely on big law, quote. I don't know if the administration knew how many little guys are out there, said Michael H. Ansell, a solo practitioner in Morristown, New Jersey, who earlier this year joined the pro bono litigation corps, newly launched by Lawyers for Good Government A legal nonprofit. He answered the nonprofit's plea for lawyers willing to give at least 20 hours a week to an upcoming case. More than 80 volunteered. Mr. Ansell typically handles small business disputes, quote, so I don't have to worry about losing any big time government contractor clients, he said. We're the last line of defense, it seems, he said. Joining our conversation is the founder and executive director of Lawyers for Good Government, Tracy Feet Love. Mike is still with us. Tracey, tell us about, tell us about what you are able to do and what the silver linings might be to Donald Trump's war on big law firms.

[David Axelrod]

Thank you so much. What we've been seeing is a really unprecedented attack on the legal profession. Executive orders targeting individual law firms, attempts at judicial intimidation. And these attacks are working, creating a chilling effect and reducing access to justice. So our goal, our mission with the pro bono litigation corps is to help close that gap by recruiting and mobilizing individual attorneys who aren't necessarily working within large law firms, but who do have the expertise, the time and the willingness required to take on these cases.

[John Heilemann]

Do you feel like there is more opportunity to take on these cases because of the chill that you're talking about and the attacks on big law firms?

[David Axelrod]

Well, for individual attorneys who may have wanted for years to be able to work and volunteer, there really hasn't been a path for them. Most impact litigation organizations just aren't built for volunteer mobilization, which makes sense. It requires a lot of resources and a lot of effort to be able to build the systems and the infrastructure required to support volunteers working on litigation. That is what Lawyers for Good Government has been all about since our founding in 2016. And that is finding new and innovative ways to mobilize the volunteer energy of pro bono attorneys. So this is now, we think, an opportunity for individual attorneys to have access to things they need in order to be able to volunteer effectively. And that includes access to infrastructure, legal research tools, paralegal support, supervision, and mentorship from our expert staff attorneys. All of those things do create an opportunity for unaffiliated individual attorneys who want to step in and just needed a way to do it.

[John Heilemann]

I mean, Mike, the good news is that people that need good lawyers will be able to find good lawyers. The bad news is that all the brand enhancement, all the marketing, all the schmoozy PR baloney that firms like Paul Weiss Scott out of hobnobbing with elite Democrats, that opportunity seems to be gone. And the people doing the good pro bono work that just adds to enhance the brand of big fancy law Firms that period may be coming to an end.

[Mike Schmidt]

Look, a lot of lawyers went to work at a place like Paul Weiss because they knew that they could make a great living, but there would be a larger mission to what they were doing, that they would be able to work on pro bono cases, that they would be able to work on things they thought were righteous at the same time that they were being compensated. Well, that model at Paul Weiss has been changing significantly over the past few years and was all but destroyed by the deal that it made with the government. And it will now attract a different type of law student, a law student who wants to work much more on the corporate side and is less concerned about the pro bono work. But there was always, and I think this is one of the reasons that, that the Paul Weiss story sort of took off, at least in, in New York in the way that it did. There was always a sense from Paul Weiss lawyers that there was a greater purpose to what they were doing. They weren't just big time lawyers, they were lawyers out there that also had the opportunity to take on cases that they believed were, you know, righteous for, you know, for whatever causes. They, they thought that doesn't exist anymore. And it looks like it was a farce over those years. So those people from Paul that made themselves out like that were sort of exposed in the process. And I think that's why so many people found Paul Weiss's capitulation to be, you know, you know, basically hypocritical.

[John Heilemann]

I want to show both of you what Marco Lias had to say about this dynamic that we're all talking about. I have to sneak in a quick break first. We'll all be back on the other side.

[Tracy Feithlove]

So if you're out there looking for a lawyer and you're looking to hire the best, and these folks are charging you $3,000 an hour, right? Are you going to pay someone that the judges are looking down on? Are you going to pay someone who's.

[John Heilemann]

You know, maybe going to have to.

[Tracy Feithlove]

Pull their punches against, against the administration?

[Nicole Wallace]

Are you looking for someone who will.

[John Heilemann]

Sacrifice being tough to save their own.

[Tracy Feithlove]

Skin and make their lives a little easier? Or are you going to go with.

[John Heilemann]

The folks who stand up and fight.

[Tracy Feithlove]

Hard every single day and don't back down? And so it is a business story. It is a democracy story. They look like craven fools and gutless cowards, and it hasn't gone away.

[John Heilemann]

The stench of what they have done has not gone away. This one way to look at it, Tracy and Mike are back with us. Tracy, how much of this, this is work that folks like yourself and these lawyers would be trying to do, regardless of whether these big law firms had made sort of unholy alliances with this White House and. And how much of it is more meaningful and feels more urgent and more rewarding for you because of the vacuum that these big law firms that Mark Elias is talking about there, in my view, accurately, and that Mike is talking about in the example of Paul Weiss.

[David Axelrod]

I mean, look, our goal is to try to make sure that access to justice is not stifled by political extortion. And if that means mobilizing individual attorneys, small law firms solos people who normally, in previous times, previous administrations, maybe wouldn't have needed to or have had the opportunity to get involved with this type of work now, then that's what we're going to do, because we will do what it takes to help ensure access to justice, to help make sure that those who need an attorney in order to challenge governmental overreach have access to those resources, and essentially to try to make sure that individuals and communities, those who are being most impacted by this administration's policies, aren't just getting steamrolled because they can't find an attorney willing to challenge the government on some of those unconstitutional actions.

[John Heilemann]

Tracy, one of the things that the big law firms brought was a lot of resources. How are you able to. To meet the demand for legal representation at an extraordinary moment like this in our government?

[David Axelrod]

Well, I will say there's no replacement for the resources that Big Law brings to the table. And I'm grateful that many of our large law firm partners are continuing to do pro bono work that is extremely, extremely important. We don't expect to be able to match those resources, but thankfully, we have incredible donors, including a group of Atlanta trial lawyers led by Jay. We have incredible volunteers, including a retired Scadden partner named Gary DiBianco, who is volunteering with us full time to help us get this effort off the ground. And we have hundreds of volunteer attorneys who are ready to step in. So our goal is not necessarily to be able to replace the massive resources that Big Law can bring to the table, but it is to do what we can to try to mobilize resources that maybe were underutilized in the past so that we can take more advantage of the talents and the skill set and the expertise. Expertise that we know individual volunteer lawyers can bring to the table.

[John Heilemann]

Mike, let me ask you if you have any update on the deals that the firms did. Politico reported this about a week ago. Quote, the Firms that threw in the towel appear to have misjudged the fallout. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has gotten hammered by the judges presiding over the cases challenging the White House. He has publicly boasted about the deals for months and repeatedly said he will put the settling firm firms to work for the administration. But there is no publicly available evidence that this has actually happened. What is the status of the deals firms like Paul Weiss entered into?

[Mike Schmidt]

So, as far as we can tell, they have not been called on to do their pro bono legal work yet in connection with the government, in connection with the administration, despite what Trump has said. The interesting thing, though, is, is that the narrative and the judicial rulings have gone in favor of the fighting firms. The fighting firms have continued to win in court. The administration delayed appealing those decisions for a while after. It looks like they did that just a few weeks ago. And basically, there has been a feeling from clients and companies out there that they want to be represented more by fighting firms and by those firms that did are less attractive to them. This is going to be a very hard thing to measure. It's going to take us a long time to sort of understand the impact of it. A lot of lawyers have left some of the firms that made deals, they've, you know, formed new firms or gone to the fighting firms. But it's a, it's a hard thing to measure. And, you know, we look for clues here and there, and it'll, it'll take more time. But for now, those firms that have gone to court have won and have been able to stop the executive orders and have survived.

[John Heilemann]

They've stopped all of them. Tracy Fightlove, Mike Schmidt, thank you both for joining us on this story. Another break for us. We'll be right back.

[Tracy Feithlove]

But there's a writers room somewhere.

[John Heilemann]

Somewhere.

[Nicole Wallace]

Yeah.

[Tracy Feithlove]

And in that writer's room, there they are figuring out these seasonal arcs that are just, they're just gobsmacking. Like, for instance, you know, remember for a moment there, it was, it was very plausible that he was going to win the election but start serving in prison.

[John Heilemann]

Quick programming note. When we launched the Best People podcast, my very first guest was actor and director Jason Bateman. I'm a huge fan. He and his podcast Smart Lists are an inspiration. They were an inspiration for beginning the Best People. Well, tomorrow at 4:00pm Eastern, you can watch the entire conversation with Jason Bateman right here on msnbc. We hope you'll tune in and let me know what you think. Another break for us. We'll be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes for another week of shows. We are so grateful.

[Tim Miller]

Not all meals are created equal. For instance, breakfast has the spicy egg McMuffin for a limited time. And lunch does it. McDonald's breakfast comes first.