← Deadline: White House
Deadline: White House
“Where’s the rest?”
00:41:01
Alicia Menendez is in for Nicolle Wallace, covering the outcry from survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and members of Congress over the dissatisfactory release of the Epstein files.
Loading summary
Transcript78 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey, everyone, it's Chris Hayes. This week on podcast why Is this Happening? What's behind Saudi Arabia's recent rise in executions?
- [00:07]
B
They are still executing minors for the same thing that these comedians who are going to comedy festival are, you know, trying to reason their visit that it is for, you know, promoting the freedom of expression, but you are really promoting your bank account.
- [00:22]
A
That's this week on why is this Happening? Search for why is this Happening?
- [00:25]
C
Wherever you're listening right now.
- [00:26]
A
And follow.
- [00:34]
D
Hi everyone, it is 4 o' clock here in New York. I'm Alicia Menendez in for Nicole Wallace. The Trump administration enters the week under intense scrutiny and facing accusations of a cover up. The long awaited release of documents from the criminal case of deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein making waves not for what was in those files, but what for what was not in those files. As Politico points out, financial records, internal memos from prosecutors who investigated Epstein's alleged sex trafficking ring, key material obtained from the searches of Epstein's palatial homes. None of it figured prominently in the documents released Friday. Interested in records that would help explain how Epstein grew so wealthy? None to be found. Want to read emails from federal prosecutors deciding who to charge and equally importantly, who not to charge during their 2019 investigation? You're out of luck. In a statement out this morning, multiple survivors of Jeffrey Epstein say that, quote, the public received a fraction of the files and what we received was riddled with abnormal and extreme redactions with no explanation. At the same time, numerous victim identities were left unredacted, causing real and immediate harm. It is alarming that the United States Department of Justice, the very agency tasked with upholding the law, has violated the law both by withholding massive quantities of documents and by failing to redact survivors identities. Survivors deserve truth. Survivors whose identities are private deserve protection. The public deserves accountability, and the law must be enforced. Add to that the sudden deletion of a handful of photos, one of which showed a desk covered with images, including that of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. Both men have denied any wrongdoing. This image you are seeing here later reappeared in the files that were posted. In an interview on Meet the Press, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche denied that the initial removal had anything to do with Trump. He also added that more documents are coming, but that is not quelling the doubts that the Trump administration is acting in good faith when it comes to the Epstein case. Here is Congressman Ro Khanna, one of the sponsors of the bill to force the release of the Epstein files.
- [02:46]
C
The problem is this was A slap in the face of survivors. What do they want? They want to know who are the rich and powerful men who visited Epstein's rape island and covered up the abuse and the key documents that our law basically said needed to be released. The 60 count indictment that actually implicates a lot of these people and the prosecution memo were not released. It's not about the timeline, it's about the selective concealment.
- [03:13]
D
Khanna and his Republican co sponsor, Congressman Thomas Massie, say they will bring inherent contempt charges against Attorney General Pam Bondi, which could lead to fines for Bondi for every day the files are not released in full. Over in the Senate, Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer introduced legislation to force the Senate to take legal action against the Trump Justice Department. According to Khanna, more files are expected to be released today, adding this quote, the DOJ must stop protecting rich and powerful men who were not charged or those who sabotaged the prosecution. Awaiting the release of more files in the Epstein case as the administration faces backlash for what it has released so far, is where we begin today. I want to bring in Democratic Congressman Rajakrishnamurthy of Illinois. He is a member of the House Oversight Committee. Congressman, it is good to see you. Your reaction to what we have seen thus far?
- [04:03]
E
I think it's an F minus minus effort by the President and the White House to release what the law requires, which is all of the Epstein files, and it needed to be released by Friday. You know, there are whole categories missing at this point. And one note I have to make, which is that the reason why we're here is because a thousand plus victims, then girls, now middle aged women, have now come forward and basically told their stories and it's kind of stiffened the resolve of Democrats and Republicans to make sure that, that justice is done for them. And, and I don't think people are going to back down, Alicia, in the face of this charitably described, incomplete kind of release of documents in response to the law.
- [04:54]
D
Yeah. If folks had actually listened and responded to Maria farmer back in 1996, 30 years later would be in a very different position. Okay, do you think we're going to get a next batch of files today?
- [05:06]
E
That's what we're told. I'm hopeful. But you know, as others have pointed out, unless and until we receive these various categories of information, in my opinion, the financial records are perhaps the most important, but also the draft indictments, the investigative memos and other materials, I think that we will safely describe it yet again as a, as a failed effort. I should just note that there are other sources of these documents, including the Epstein estate and others who are producing these documents on a rolling basis. So we also get more clues as to what documents have not been released because we see them in other productions.
- [05:46]
D
So, Congressman, as we await a potential next cache of these documents, let's talk a little bit about what was released. Just a ton of redactions. 119 pages of one documents completely redacted. Do you on House Oversight have any way of verifying whether those redactions were in fact necessary?
- [06:07]
E
Not yet. I think that we will obviously be getting documents from other sources and that will give us clues. But I mean, hundreds of pages of, you know, grand jury material should not be redacted. You know, in whole, I should just mention one other thing which is that it's very interesting how there have been a number of survivors names and other information that was included in an unredacted form. And that just leads you to wonder, you know, was this done potentially intentionally to send a chilling effect to survivors and others? Because if that's the case, that would not only be in contravention of the law, but that would be deeply, deeply disturbing from various standpoints. But I think, you know, we're not going to back down. I think public sentiment is going to be strongly in favor of our position.
- [07:02]
D
You're not going to back down. You've also, it's become apparent these survivors are not going to back down either. Let's talk about what's going to happen in the House and the Senate and the Senate. You got Democrat Tim Kaine saying that it is, quote, premature to impeach Pam Bondi. We have Congressman Ro, Khanna Thomas mat they are floating inherent contempt, even a criminal referral to the DOJ for obstruction. Do you yourself have a sense of how Congress should hold the administration accountable to abiding by the law that Congress itself passed?
- [07:30]
E
I think it's going to be a multi pronged effort. I think there's going to be court action as well. And court action has succeeded in the past with regard to this White House. Just recently, for instance, a court handed down a decision allowing us to inspect ICE detention facilities for the first time and that allow to enter an ICE detention facility just two days ago for the first time after four visits. We're going to see court action. We're going to probably see this contempt resolution potentially move forward. But at the end of the day, Alicia, I think it's public pressure, especially within the MAGA base, but also among others, that is going to, in my opinion force this White House to produce more documents. I think that's what led to its production of documents in the first place. And I think that that is going to intensify because people get it. People understand the situation very clearly and they're not going to stand for it.
- [08:27]
D
To your point about how there is the contempt resolution, but more than anything, there's this question of public pressure, particularly public pressure from the MAGA base. You have four GOP members who signed onto the discharge petition. That was big part of what got it over the threshold. One of them, Marjorie Taylor Greene, retiring in just a few days. As you think about future action, do you think you're going to that GOP support in pushing back against Donald Trump on this specific question?
- [08:53]
E
I think so, yeah. I think, you know, just privately when I talk to people, they are aghast about this whole Epstein files affair, so to speak. The child sex trafficking ring, the victims. I have to say that the survivors coming forward and meeting with us in private at length, I do think made a big difference in terms of people being able to understand just the gravity of the situation, the need to do justice for them, but also to prevent this from ever happening again. As the survivor said, there are perpetrators potentially in our midst who may be doing similar harm to others as we speak. And so we have to do everything we can to identify who they are, to neutralize them and also to prevent this from happening again.
- [09:43]
D
Congressman Rajakrishnamurthy of the House Oversight Committee, thank you so much for being with us today talking about these files. I want to bring into our conversation, justice and intelligence reporter Ken Delaney. Also with us, former top official at the Justice Department, legal analyst Andrew Weissman and political analyst former Senator Claire McCaskill is here. It is good to see you. All right, Ken, I already asked the congressman, but I want to ask you any sense of what, if anything, we can expect today from doj?
- [10:10]
A
No.
- [10:11]
C
You know, Alicia, they are not reading out their process to reporters at all. It's been a black box, I have to say. Obviously, there's a lot of people who are concerned about it at the same time. And I'm no defender of the Pam Bondi, Donald Trump Justice Department. But I have a little sympathy for the massive undertaking that is ongoing at the Justice Department. They have more than 200 lawyers. Many of them are in the National Security Division. So one wonders what cases they were pulled off to do this. But more than 200 lawyers going through and trying to redact this stuff. They say pursuant to law. Again, we don't know what their process is. And you know, they're also making the point that, you know, you can have concerns about what they're doing, but they're making the point that, you know, in the Biden administration, Democrats were not calling for the release of these files. And even though the survivors wanted transparency then as well, this is a, it's a recent phenomenon. It's tinged with politics. Everybody's trying to exploit it for their own ends. And you know, the DOJ is, from their point of view, they're trying to push this stuff out. And from their point of view, this is more transparency in the EPC matter than we've seen in many, many years. As dissatisfied as some people are.
- [11:17]
D
Andrew Weissman, as a one time paralegal, I have great empathy for what it is that doc review actually requires. And yet I wonder if that defense from DOJ passes the smell test to you.
- [11:33]
F
It doesn't. For this reason. The claim by Todd Blanch is we're trying really hard, but it's a very Herculean project that would have some plausible force if they were taking the position that they only started doing this when Congress forced them to. But Todd Blanch has now said on Meet the Press and elsewhere that Donald Trump has wanted this, these files to be disclosed for years. In fact, he said he wanted it done even before his re election. So that means that either the Department of Justice didn't obey his wishes when they came into office in January, or he's just not telling the truth because if they had started this process in January, then it's not such a Herculean process. But what's clear is that Donald Trump never wanted these to be disclosed. There's lots of reporting about that. He was sort of forced into it by Congress. And that's why they're jammed up. So they only have themselves to blame. Nor have they answered the question, even within that truncated time period, why they didn't prioritize everything with Donald Trump's name on it. That was a question asked on Meet the Press but not answered.
- [13:04]
D
Do you think, Claire, that is a question they couldn't answer or a question they did not want to answer?
- [13:10]
B
Well, you know, here's the thing. Andrew's right about this. We know they put a massive amount of FBI resources on going through these files. And we know that after they did, their job was to find Trump's name. We know that after they did, Pam Biondi went to Trump and said, your names are in, your name is in the files from that moment forward. Now, we don't know what else she said, like in what context his names were in the files, what the files revealed about his relationship with Epstein. But after he found out from her, after they made this Herculean effort to go through all the files and find his name, that's when he became, you know, well, we don't. We can't release the files. We can't release the files. We can't release the files. So that's why this all looks really fishy. And there are things that they can release right away. The things that are most interesting, like the prosecution memos, like some of the. I mean, this was a vote. Only one person voted against this in the House of Representative. This was an overwhelming vote by Congress. And by the way, this law also says if you're going to redact information, you have to explain why it was redacted. They have not done that for the hundreds and thousands of pages that they've released that are totally blacked out. So this is a big F, a big F on their part. And the interesting thing about this politically is the more they keep messing around with this, the more they keep playing games with this, the worse it gets politically for them.
- [14:39]
D
A big F. Andrew Weissman. Okay, you have the senator saying she wants to see the prosecution memo. You had Congressman Krishnamurthy saying he wanted to see more financial records. If, in fact we do get an extra set of documents today, what is it that you, Andrew Weissman, are going to be looking for?
- [14:59]
F
I'm really interested in the nature of the investigation, and if I were a victim, I would be interested in that as well. And the reason I say that is going again to Todd Blanche. One of the things that he said in defending the way he interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell is he said, you know, I didn't ask her about all those estate documents like the one where, where Epstein says to Ghislaine Maxwell, you know, the dog that didn't bark is essentially is Donald Trump. Like, you know, he hasn't spilled the beans. I didn't ask him about that because we didn't have it. I'm really interested in what they did and what they didn't do in the investigation. Why didn't they have those documents? Who did they interview? Who didn't they injured? Was Donald Trump ever interviewed? Were other men who were present with Jeffrey Epstein who were close to him at various times? Were they interviewed? And if not, why not? That, to me, something that is a fault that could fall across multiple administrations. This is not just a sort of Republican or Democratic issue. But I think the victims are entitled to know how thorough was the investigation here.
- [16:17]
D
Well, and I think that speaks to this point, Ken, which is that one of the more substantive things we saw in the initial Release was a 1996 complaint by Maria Farmer. The complaint says that Epstein stole photos she took of her sisters. They were both underage. Again, that's 1996. Farmer says the FBI didn't interview her until 10 years later, 2006. Any clarity, Ken, on what happened in those intervening years?
- [16:43]
A
No.
- [16:43]
C
And as far as I'm concerned, that is the most dramatic revelation we've seen from these files so far. Essentially that the FBI has ignored a substantive complaint, that if they had pursued it, maybe could have ended the whole thing before it began, and we wouldn't have heard Jeffrey Epstein's name by now. And, you know, the complaint itself, I've heard. I've talked to sources who have said, look, that may not have been enough. What I've seen in writing may not have been enough for the FBI to open an investigation. But what this woman and her lawyer say is that she said a lot more to them. She raised questions about Maxwell, about some of Epstein's associates, and what he was doing with underage girls. So if that's all true, that is a dramatic revelation. It sort of recalls the Larry Nassar scandal, where Chris Wray, you know, he wasn't personally involved, but he had to go to Congress and apologize. And he issued a number of policy changes in the wake of that and settled with victims. None of that happened here. Louis Freeh, by the way, was the FBI director in 1996. It was during the Clinton administration. No one has answered for this, and it really does bear more investigating.
- [17:48]
D
Claire. It is absolutely infuriating. It is infuriating to me as someone who has covered the story. I'm sure it is infuriating to you as a former prosecutor that something like this was even possible. And to think about that span of time, the number of. Of girls and women that could have been spared and saved if institutions had actually taken Maria Farmer's claims seriously, had actually addressed and investigated them. It occurs to me, Claire, that the more information we get, the more questions actually begin to emerge.
- [18:22]
B
Yeah, there are a lot of questions that haven't been answered here about various parts of law enforcement not doing their job well. Obviously, there are many thousands, millions of women in this country who have not been taken seriously when they have made complaints about sexual assault. Are we doing better today than we were when I became a young Prosecutor in the late 70s. Yes, we are doing better today, but there's still problems. I would say also that, you know, pay attention to who you elect as your local prosecutors. Ultimately, this case was a state case. Now it ended up being interstate trafficking. So then it did come to the federal system. But 99% of sexual assaults in this country are handled by local prosecutors and most of them are elected. The elected prosecutor who dropped the ball on Jeffrey Epstein because he was powerful and he gave him some kind of bogus sentence which really wasn't a sentence. And then it really didn't seem like it was that big a deal to powerful people around him. Jeffrey Epstein, he deserves a lot of the blame here because that case should have been taken up and taken seriously and Epstein should have gone to prison for a long time.
- [19:38]
D
Absolutely unbelievable. Ken, Andrew, Claire, you are all staying with me. Ahead for us today, with Trump's poll numbers steadily falling, MAGA infighting taking over much of this weekend's conservative convention, the GOP finds itself at a real crossroad and test for the Trump movement. Plus, the US Continuing to escalate tensions with Venezuela as the Coast Guard tries to stop another oil tanker in the region. We're going to try and understand what is going on. And later in the show, questions around whether or not the White House had anything to do with a 60 minute segment getting pulled hours before it was set to air. All those stories and more when Deadline White House continues after this. It is 4:24pm in the east and we are still awaiting the release of more files from the Epstein case. Our team is going to comb through those files as soon as we get them. Bring in Ken, Andrew and Claire. All right, Andrew, I want to talk about what is happening on Capitol Hill, specifically what we've heard from Thomas Massie and from Ro Khanna about inherent contempt, your understanding of how that would work and if it could in fact force Bondi to comply.
- [20:48]
F
This is one where I'm fascinated to hear from Claire because, you know, contempt can take a long time. And I think there are probably other levers that Congress has, whether holding up nominations, whether it's on spending, you know, they're, they're powers that Congress has over the executive. And contempt is, is a power, but it is slow. It means, you know, going to, to court. It means, you know, having the court adjudicate due processes involved. So that means taking time. And ultimately if they're really just talking about a fine, you know, that's not something that I think is going cause Pam Bondi, a lot of you know, losing a lot of sleep on that. So I think there probably are better ways and stronger ways to get at what they need, given that they passed a law and by all accounts, including Todd Blanche's own admission, they have not complied with that law. Now, he has an excuse. It doesn't seem like a terribly good one to me, as we've discussed, but, you know, he has not complied with the law.
- [22:00]
D
Andrew Weissman, I, too, want to hear From Senator Claire McCaskill on what she think. I mean, you have been in these rooms, Claire, right, where these decisions are made. And it's not as though the senators sit in the room and make the decision by themselves. There are attorneys in the room and say, let's, let's play it out under every set of scenarios. Your sense of why it is that they likely landed here?
- [22:20]
B
Well, Andrew's right. A traditional contempt takes a long time. We went after Backpage for refusing to come to our hearing when we were investigating their role in sex trafficking on their website. And we had to take it up. And it took, well, it definitely took over a year. We eventually were successful. But inherent contempt is a little different. And frankly, it's been used so infrequently. I wish I knew exactly how it worked. But it's my understanding that this is one that can be done just by Congress. It does not have to go to the court. Now. It would take something that has the bipartisan support of everybody, which frankly, releasing these files does at this point. So if I were Pam Biondi and if I were Todd Blanche, I would be a little nervous about this because they could set a fine at 100 grand a day, and then the question would be, who pays that? I do think they. If Todd Blanche thinks everyone's just gonna go, oh, well, we understand. Yeah. You were able to get through the files quickly to see if Trump's name was in them, but you can't get them quick, give us the prosecution memo or the financials. This dog doesn't hunt. And they are going to have to do this better and quicker or I do think Congress will take some action with this inherent contempt. That is a power that really doesn't have much muscle on it because it's.
- [23:48]
D
Really never been used before, especially because they're already being asked and being forced to answer questions about other decisions they've made. Ken Blanche was asked about Ghislaine Maxwell being transferred to a lower security prison on Meet the Press. I want you to, to take a listen to what he said.
- [24:04]
B
Why was she moved just Days after.
- [24:07]
D
You interviewed her, Mr. Blanch.
- [24:11]
G
So that's a Bureau of Prison Security issue that. That I will not talk about.
- [24:16]
B
Did you have anything to do with it?
- [24:18]
D
Did you have anything to do with it?
- [24:22]
G
Let me finish. First of all, I am responsible for the Bureau of Prisons. So every decision that they make lands on my desk to the extent it needs to. But just let me talk about the security issue. At the time that I met Ms. Maxwell, there was a tremendous amount of scrutiny and publicity towards her and the institution she was in. She was suffering numerous and numerous threats against her Life. So the BoP is not only responsible for putting people in jail and making sure they stay in jail, but also for their safety. And so she was moved. She is in federal prison. She was in federal prison before. She's in federal prison now. She's doing 20 years because she was convicted. And the fact that she was moved, she might be moved to another institution tomorrow if security requires it. And that's true of any federal inmate across this country.
- [25:13]
D
Okay, help me understand. Because she didn't get moved to a commensurate security prison, she got moved to a lower security prison. His argument there, Ken, is this is the way to protect Max. Does it make sense to you?
- [25:31]
C
Well, look, Alicia, I'm sure that the Bureau of Prisons is concerned about Maxwell's safety, given the mistakes that led up to the Epstein suicide. But there are a lot of ways that the Bureau of Prisons has to protect inmates without sending them to essentially a Club Fed style prison camp where sex offenders are not allowed. So what they did here is they violated their own policy. They had to get a waiver. And prison consultants I talked to said they have never, ever seen this happen where a sex offender serving a 20 year sentence gets transferred to what is essentially a prison camp. And then beyond that, the House Democrats did an investigation and they published documents and information showing that the warden of this facility is granting Maxwell special favors, including a special exercise room, special privileges for her visitors, special food, all kinds of privileges granted by the warden, according to this investigation. And the Bureau of Prisons has not explained that, and Todd Blanche has not explain it. So something very unusual is happening here. And the Attorney General's explanation just does not wash. There's lots of ways the Bureau of Prison can protect inmates without sending them to the least restrictive federal prison that they're not eligible for.
- [26:40]
D
Andrew, I saw both you and Claire's head shaking as I was asking Ken that question, But I only have time to ask it of one of you. I mean, does anything you heard there from Todd Blanch make sense to you.
- [26:51]
F
That move does not happen without senior DOJ leadership orchestrating it in my IT because there's no way that it complies with BoP policy and rules, Ken said. So this has to be orchestrated from the top. And many people, including me, think that Ghislaine Maxwell sort of lied through her teeth and gave answers that are just not plausible and no pushback by the deputy attorney general and then was rewarded. All of this happening without any input from the victims, which is yet another thing that violates DOJ rules, which is the idea that you wouldn't have talked to the victims beforehand when you did something like this. I mean, all of this is why DOJ is just, is just not the place where I worked for many, many years under Republican and Democratic administrations. It is, it is really, it's really shocking.
- [27:52]
D
4:31 in the east and we are still waiting for those documents. Ken Delaney and Andrew Weissman, Claire McCaskill, thank you all so much for getting us started. I may ask you to come back if we get them in the next hour and a half after the break. The stars of Donald Trump's MAGA movement trying to cancel each other out at this weekend's conservative gathering. We're going to get to that next. One of my favorite pieces of advice, think big to accomplish big things. Have no fear of failure. It really does come down to just trusting yourself.
- [28:24]
B
Julia Boorstin Hosts CNBC Changemakers and Power Players Listen now, wherever you get your podcasts.
- [28:32]
D
Maga faithfuls gathered at Turning Point USA's America Fest this weekend to listen to some of the most prominent figures in the movement. What they got, though, was a weekend marked by chaos and feuding. Here was right wing podcaster Ben Shapiro setting the tone on the first night of that event.
- [28:51]
G
The conservative movement is also in danger from charlatans who claim to speak in.
- [28:56]
D
The name of principle, but actually traffic.
- [28:58]
G
In conspiracism and dishonesty. These people are frauds and they are grifters and they do not deserve your time.
- [29:05]
D
Ooh. As the New York Times puts it, the conference, quote, not only exposed fissures in President Trump's movement, but also laid bare a challenge for his potential successor. How would his likely heir apparent handle an explosive debate among Republicans over whether extremists and conspiracy theorists should be embraced or excluded from the conservative coalition? Well, here's how Vice President J.D. vance seemed to answer that question when he spoke at the conference yesterday. And when I say that I'm going to fight Alongside of you.
- [29:37]
H
I mean, all of you, Each and every one.
- [29:40]
A
President Trump did not build the greatest.
- [29:43]
C
Coalition in politics by running his supporters.
- [29:46]
H
Through endless self defeating purity tests.
- [29:51]
D
I want to bring in Media Matters President Angela Carson and Democratic pollster and political analyst Cornell Belcher. You know, Angela, it was interesting to me. Some of even my, you know, sort of my friends who do not follow politics seem to have been following the drama of what unfolded this weekend. It has been bubbling under the surface for a while now. Why did it spill out into public this weekend?
- [30:12]
A
Because it was a forum for it and because it was designed to spill out. I mean, I think we shouldn't ignore that when these conferences are not impromptu events. I mean, the, anyone who's in the space knows where the fault lines are. And it wasn't an accident the way that individuals were sequenced and who even had a spot on stage. And the point was to create that clash so that one, it would spill out. And I think also because you could then get to the climax where J.D. vance comes in there and says, we're not gonna get to have these purity tests. In a way, he did sort of pick a side by sort of letting everybody spend three days debating and then saying, okay, that's it, we're done. We're not doing this now. They're gonna still debate and fight and grapple. But he basically gave his position on where he's gonna be at.
- [30:57]
D
I agree with that. And yet, Cornell, I don't know that he has the political will to force all of those factions to get along. I wonder what you made of his comment. That was welco. Fringe figures of the party, ostensibly a party that he in his own imagination believes he will one day lead.
- [31:17]
I
Well, I think from a political standpoint, if he's trying to inherit that coalition politically, you got to say he did the right thing. But if you want to step back and take not just a hard sort of political coalition view of it, J.D. vance is the, the Vice President of the United States of America. And we are at a time and period in this country where the Vice President of the United States of America won't take sides in a fight. And one of the sides is, you know, even some of the people there say that they're conspiracists and bigots. So we're at a point right now in this country where the Vice President of the United States won't take sides. And one of the sides is against bigotry and a lot of sort of nuttiness and anti science. I think that speaks a lot about where we are in this country broadly. But also it speaks to that coalition and sort of who they are and how tough it is and how divisive that coalition is.
- [32:22]
D
Cornell, I appreciate your doing the reset there. And it's something that was actually echoed by GOP Congressman Don Bacon. This is how he responded to Vance's comments. Quote, I'll never vote for someone who is ambiguous in their stance against anti Semit or who can't see that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a threat to our long range strategic interests. I'm a big tent GOP guy, but anti Semitism and pro Putin fetishism are disgusting. I mean, listen, Bacon's retiring at the end of his term, but it does make you wonder if that if what he is doing is creating a permission structure for other Republicans to say, that's right, I'm more of a Don Bacon guy than I am a JD Vance guy. And if there's actually room for that piece of the coalition Cornell to grow.
- [33:07]
I
I hope it is right. And again, I'm coming to you as Ms. Now analyst, political analyst, not as a Democrat, but just as an American. And as an American, you hope that there is a place for that and time where Americans like you got data out there, polling data that shows America think the country is more divided. As ever, a majority of Americans think we're on the path to civil war. So somewhere you hope there is a pullback and we can sort of, you know, pull back from this division and pull back from some of this divisiveness and pull back from some of this anti Semitism, the xenophobia and just straight bigotry that you see. But I'm also not optimistic about it because it's just a couple of weeks ago the sitting president of the United States was attacking Somalian immigrants in this country and calling them the most horrific and racist things is also the president of the United States and many around him who use language talking about immigrants as poisoning the blood of America. And we all know that that has historical connotations with fascism, Right?
- [34:11]
D
And their language is also manifesting in the largest deportation machine this country has ever seen. You are both sticking with me. Up next, a former Trump ally calling last week, quote, awful for Donald Trump, warning of even bigger problems for the gop. We're going to look at that next.
- [34:30]
H
This is a pretty strange week. Just think about it. He sends out that disgraceful post on the murder of Rob Reiner and his wife Michelle. Then he puts his name on the building named after an assassinated president. Then he gives a frenetic national TV speech filled with inaccuracies. Putin continues to manipulate him to deteriorate the 80 year NATO alliance. And twice now in the past month, you've seen Republicans break from him on Capitol Hill on both the Epstein files and ACA subsidies. It's not a strange week, John. It's an awful week.
- [35:14]
D
That was former New Jersey governor and Trump ally Chris Christie summing up last week's news for us. We are back with Angelo and with Cornell. Angelo, the vibes have shifted.
- [35:24]
A
Yeah. And I think what, you know, Trump's sort of bad polling and the overall vibes is related to what we were talking about in the previous segment about the infighting that was on display at Turning Point usa, which is that you have every prominent right wing media figure right now that instead of talking about the economy and affordability and boosting Trump's economic record, or just the imagination engine creating the acceptable veneer around him or shaping the vibe, they're not doing that for Trump. Instead, what they're doing is fighting with each other about where the future fault lines are going to be. And that's, to me, where the connective tissue is. And that's why the vibes are kind of bad, is because they're still sort of sorting out what the future is and they're sort of leaving Trump in the dust here. And until they shift back to telling the story and wrapping that veneer around him, the vibes around him is polling. Everything else is going to continue to sort of middle waffle tank and people are gonna see him for what he really is, which is actually not very, very popular.
- [36:21]
D
Well, Cornell, let's look at some of that polling. This is from CBS News. It shows 50% of Americans say that Trump's policies are making them worse off financially. It would seem he does not have the discipline to actually do what would be necessary to turn those numbers around, especially since a lot of what he would have to do is undoing the things that he has already done. I'm thinking of the tariff tariffs in particular. When you were doing your polling and your focus groups, how much is this the dominant theme?
- [36:52]
I
Well, it is a dominant theme. And when you get underneath that. And by the way, I couldn't agree more with the analysis, that was spot on. It's like the Americans are concerned about the price of groceries and inflation and prominent Republicans are in Washington and attacking each other and fighting about things that are nonsense. But that's part of the point. And it is, you know, it's amazing to me they have the opportunity, cuz they control the House and the Senate and of course Trump's in the White House, they have the opportunity to actually put in place policies and legislation that would in fact speak to some of these issues that Americans have. But what are they in fact doing? They're not doing any of that. They're fighting. And the President seems more, more focused on slapping his name to the point on buildings and tearing down the White House than actually solving for some of the problems like actually doing the job. And look, at some point it becomes what are their policies? And this is where elections matter. And you've seen what the elections look like this year and going into next year. From a policy standpoint, what are you going to do to help Americans bring down costs? What are you going to do to help Americans feel better about the future and what's in their pocketbooks? And the economy, but also not just the economy, because also the data shows that Americans feel that America is really divided and it's not and is unhealthy. So there's a lot of things before us. And what are they gonna do?
- [38:31]
D
Yeah, I mean, Angela, I take your point that an event like Turning Points is actually designed in some ways to bring these things to a cr. Crescendo. If it were a different type of strategy, it would have been a crescendo on economic policy and affordability as anything other than a hoax. So let me just play this out. There's a bunch of infighting. Daddy comes home and says, kids, we're not fighting, we're all going to get along. And then what happens today and in the days that follow, the grippers win.
- [38:58]
A
I mean, ultimately one of the fault lines is are we going to cater to right wing anti Semites or not? Not. And what they've decided ultimately and what Vance basically said by saying he's not going to have these purity tests is that the grippers are going to win. That that fault line is essentially going to be ceded to the ground to the Nick Fuentes of the world and that he's going to increasingly organize and build power on the fringes. They're going to continue to wrap around Vance and I think that's going to be a future fault line. They're calling him 48 already. They're sort of forgetting about any other vice president. One year in is already being basically called the president by the supporters of the current president. Like that would be a massive political story. So to me, where they go from here is they're going to continue to fight. They are. And they're not going to talk very much about Trump. Some people are going to break out and start to criticize a little bit more in the vein of Marjorie Taylor Greene. And Vance is going to continue to slowly give soft permission structures for that, for various parts of the right wing media to realign around him. I mean, I don't, I think it's a really big deal. Deal that Turning Point usa, instead of being a pro Trump operation right now, the current sitting president is essentially focusing more on the campaign for 2028 for Vance. I mean, that is, that is a seismic shift. So that tells you everything you need to know about what's going to happen. Trump's numbers are going to continue to crater without that thing to backstop him and backfill and wrap all of his nonsense into something that is acceptable to the masses.
- [40:22]
D
And we will be here to watch those numbers. Angela Corazon, Cornell Belcher, thank you both so much for joining us today. After the break, Trump bringing Greenland back into the conversation. We're going to explain that's next.
- [40:37]
H
Every wireless service comes with a cost, right?
- [40:40]
C
Wrong.
- [40:40]
H
The TextNow app lets you do your thing for free. Get real talk, real text and 5G data for must have apps with no monthly bill. Need more data, add it right from the app. Done. Go back to free. No long term contracts, no pressure, no surprises. Just wireless that works around you. TextNow, we've got your back. Download TextNow in your app store today. Wireless plans require the purchase of a sim card. Visit textnow.com for terms and conditions.
- [41:08]
J
Mississippi now presents season two of the Blueprint, hosted by Jen Psaki. In each episode, she talks to leading Democrats about how they plan to win again, including Texas Congressman Greg Cassar, who chairs the Progressive caucus, Congresswoman Sarah McBride of Delaware, the first openly trans person elected to Congress and more who are helping to shape the future of the party. The Blueprint with Jen Psaki Season 2 All episodes available now.
- [41:39]
D
The foreign minister of Greenland calling Donald Trump's latest personnel appointment, quote, totally unacceptable. Yesterday, Trump announced that he's making Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry a a special envoy to Greenland, seemingly the first time such a position has been filled. Landry then thanked the president for the, quote, honor to serve in this volunteer position to make Greenland a part of the US the move again has sparked swift backlash from Denmark and Greenland, whose leader said in a joint statement, quote, you cannot annex another country, not even with an argument about international security. Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders and the U.S. shall not take over Greenland. The Danish foreign minister has said he will summon the US Ambassador over this latest move. So we're going to stay on that story. After the break, though, we'll come back to our top story. Congressman Robert Garcia calling the redactions and delays of the Epstein files nothing short of a White House cover up. He joins us on the other side of this very quick break. Stay with us.
- [42:45]
J
Ms. Now presents season two of the Blueprint, hosted by Jen Psaki. In each episode, she talks to leading Democrats about how they plan to win again, including Texas Congressman Greg Cassar, who chairs the Progressive Caucus Congresswoman Sarah McBride of Delaware, the first openly trans person elected to Congress and more who are helping to shape the future of the party. The Blueprint with Jen Psaki, Season 2, all episodes available now.