Steve Israel (7:32)

Right.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (7:33)

That's a big difference. Now, why did the President break with Jeffrey Epstein? There's different stories about that, but the White House suggests it's at least in part because he didn't like Jeffrey Epstein's behavior. Now, what did he know about that? We don't know. I'll get back to that. But what we do know is the president seems comfortable in saying, here's how I'm different from these Democrats. They associated with Jeffrey Epstein. And I didn't, at least after, after, after a long time where he did. But then a clean break says he kicked him out of Mar? A Lago. Epstein says he was not a member, but he clearly was a visitor there. I think that may be kind of an academic point, but what we're seeing now is this conflict between those who think disclosure will help and not those who are necessarily against it anymore. Because I think we're going to see overwhelming support for the disclosure of the documents the Justice Department has. But whether that will actually satisfy people, that's a big storyline here. So Tuesday morning, the accusers on Capitol Hill with Ro Khanna, The Democratic congressman, Mr. Massie, the Republican congressman, and Marjorie Taylor Greene. They've been kind of the leaders of working with the, with the victims, the accusers, to get their message out. Here is Marjorie Taylor Greene talking about why she thinks disclosure is so important. This is S5, please.

Mark Halperin (8:54)

While I want to see every single name released so that these women don't have to live in fear and intimidation, which is something I've had a small taste of in just the past few days. Just a small taste. They've been living it for years. But the real test will be will the Department of Justice release the files or will it all remain tied up in investigations? Will the CIA release the files? Will a federal. Will a judge in New York. Sorry, a judge in New York release the information? That's information that needs to come out. And will the list of names that these women privately hold, and they hold it because of their fear in their heart of what would happen to them if they release it on their own, will that list of names come out? That's the real test.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (9:50)

So this list of names, they've said in the past that they know some names that they're not comfortable talking about publicly. Here's the way that Today show on NBC described the documents that are there to be released and the chances that they will be released. This is S4, please.

Donald Trump (10:07)

Okay, so, Hallie, the vote's happening today.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (10:09)

Any idea at this point what might even be in the rest of the files?

Steve Israel (10:14)

Yeah.

Ashley Etienne (10:14)

If ultimately they do end up getting released, Craig, if this goes to the Senate, the president signs it, etc. We could see financial records, we could see more Epstein emails or texts, maybe evidence from hard drives seized from his properties, investigative summaries of interviews with key players. But keep in mind that this bill also lets the DOJ withhold information that would jeopardize an active federal investigation. And of course, the president last week directed his DOJ to open an investigation. So there's really a question on how that might ultimately affect what becomes public. And by the way, Craig, there is no timeline on when the DOJ would have to comply if this bill does pass.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (10:47)

Craig okay, so we don't know when this disclosure is going to take place. We don't know what it will be. We know it's going to be a lot. We know that the government has an enormous amount of FBI interviews, data from Epstein that wasn't part of the first release. And whenever that comes out, whether it's in stages or all at once, it's going to be an enormous amount of material and it's going to dominate the news and it's going to raise questions about redactions, what's not released because some stuff to protect victims, to protect investigations won't be released, and that's going to cause questions. The president remains super frustrated about this because he doesn't want the number of days that are going to be taken up by this conversation to blot out his attempts to talk about what he wants to do, what he's already done, that he wants success, wants credit for. Here is a very frustrated Donald Trump on Monday of this week talking about why this story bothers him so much. S2, please.

Donald Trump (11:43)

What I just don't want Epstein to do is detract from the great success of the Republican Party, including the fact that the Democrats are totally blamed for the shutdown. You know, they cost our country hundreds of billions of dollars with that and a lot of inconvenience. So I'm for any. I don't care. They could do whatever they want. We'll give them everything. Sure, I would let, let the Senate look at it, let anybody look at it, but don't talk about it too much because honestly, I don't want to take it away from us. It's really a Democrat problem. The Democrats were Epstein's friends, all of them. And it's a hoax. The whole thing is a hoax. And I don't want to take it away from really the greatness of what the Republican Party has accomplished over the last period of time.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (12:35)

So the Democrats are convinced that this is a scandal about Donald Trump, that this is going to finally destroy Donald Trump, that his failure to be for disclosure up until the last minute reflects the fact that he's worried about his relationship with Epstein. So here's a piece of data that runs counter to that. Back in 2015, 10 years ago, I was covering Donald Trump speaking in Washington to the annual CPAC meeting and he did an event on stage with Sean Hannity. And in that event, he brought up and again, think about 2015, where he's thinking about running for president the next year. He knows that Hillary Clinton is likely to run and, and if he becomes a Republican nominee, he's likely to face her in the general election. In that event, he brings up Jeffrey Epstein and his relationship to Bill Clinton 10 years ago, and he brings it up politically on offense, saying this could be a problem for Bill Clinton and for Hillary Clinton. Interesting, right? If Donald Trump were worried about Jeffrey Epstein, would he be bringing Jeffrey Epstein up now? Maybe you could say he was playing offense so he wouldn't be playing defense. But afterwards, I asked Donald Trump, I was working for Bloomberg News at the time, I asked him about his bringing up Jeffrey Epstein in the, in the conversation with Sean Hannity earlier. Here's our exchange. Is S1, please. You raised the question of Jeffrey Epstein in your remarks about in the Q.

Donald Trump (13:52)

And A. I think he's got a problem.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (13:53)

What do you think the problem will be?

Donald Trump (13:55)

I don't know. But that island was really a cesspool. There's no question about it. Just ask Prince Andrew. He'll tell you about it. The island was an absolute cesspool. So he's been there for many times. Well, I can't say friends, but I.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (14:08)

Know friendly, you know them, they play.

Donald Trump (14:10)

At my clubs a lot. I have clubs and everybody likes to play.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (14:13)

Are you saying there's a political problem for her if she runs for president?

Donald Trump (14:16)

It could be a political problem. Look, he could be a political problem. Right now he's Teflon. And right now maybe not, but he could end up being a political.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (14:24)

Well, that's one question. So 10 years ago, Donald Trump's position is Jeffrey Epstein is a political problem for Bill Clinton. And that's his position now and for other Democrats. We'll see. We'll, we'll assume that before too long, the Senate will pass a version of the House bill, maybe the change it slightly, the House will have to pass something else. But the president almost certainly now will sign into law a process that will begin where there'll be a lot of disclosure about Epstein, and we'll see where that goes. But here's the point that I think is being missed in some quarters, maybe not every quarter. But it's the question of will there be men who are charged with in the. Or suspicion raised or evidence presented in these documents who were involved in an illegal sex ring with Jeffrey Epstein. There might be. We'll see where that goes. We'll see if the names that have not been disclosed yet by the accusers, whether those names come forward in the document release, are they prepared? Bring them forward.

Steve Israel (15:21)

If.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (15:21)

If names are redacted and they feel not the full truth isn't coming out, that will play out. But here's what we do know already from the first release, and there's sure to be more of this in the second release when that comes, which is Jeffrey Epstein was aided and abetted in all of this. Made money, had influence, had connections by building on his relationships one after another. You know, this rich person, this famous person, you trade off that relationship to bring another rich and famous person into your orbit. I have searched my memory to know whether I had any interactions with Jeffrey Epstein since all this became such a big national story. And I did. I had one forum where I saw the guy. There's. There was a series of events that were movie screenings. Okay. There was a woman in New York who had relationships with all the Hollywood studios, and she would do small 10 people, 100 people, usually no more than that. Movie screenings before movies premiered, sometimes months before they premiered, and then typically dinners after them. And I was honored to be included. A lot of famous people were invited, A lot of powerful people were invited. And there were fun evenings because you went and you got to see a hot movie before it was public. You got to have dinner at a fancy restaurant afterwards. And Jeffre Epstein was there a lot. I didn't focus on it at the time. I was never introduced to him, to my recollection, but he stood out because he was always kind of hovering around, scanning the crowd. The woman who organized the events and Jeffrey Epstein were clearly very close, but he had. That showed me, in retrospect, the kind of access he had, because those were. Again, there were movie stars there. There were rich people there, famous people there, political people, a lot of media people. Okay, so that's my direct exposure to what we now see in vivid detail in all these emails where he's dealing with famous professors, billionaires, politicians, and all of them in. In. In the emails who stayed friends with him and stayed associates with him after he. He was in. He was imprisoned in Florida and in Florida jail for, you know, a short period of time. Sweetheart deal. But nonetheless, did they investigate what he was in for? Maybe not. You know, if you want to give them the slightest Benefit of the doubt. You could say they didn't know and they didn't look into it. And in my experience, that happens a lot. You know, take Mike. Michael Milken ran. Runs a very successful philanthropic endeavor, Annual Milken Conference. People come from all over the world. I bet a lot of people who go to that thing know that Michael Milken once had trouble with the law. I bet you have no idea what he did. I ask you, you know, Michael Mil, if you know Michael Milken and you know he trouble with law, Any idea what he did? I bet you don't. I don't. I know vaguely. But I couldn't tell you the exact crime he committed. I couldn't tell you if he pled guilty or was convicted at a trial. I couldn't tell you if he. If he maintained his innocence. A lot of people associate with him now. Good for him to. To find a way to give back to society. But my point is people don't necessarily look into it. They may have thought Jeffrey Epstein had some issue with prostitution, maybe didn't focus on involved underage girl. This is the story that I think is animating so much of the anger, so much of the demand for disclosure fueling in some cases, I would say, inappropriately and adverse to the public interest, the conspiracy theories. And that question is, how did these people continue to associate with him? Some up until he killed. He was found dead in his prison cell. Okay, so Sharon Waxman, who writes about Hollywood, she writes for a thing called the Rap. Two paragraphs that just are brilliant in capturing what I think a lot of this is about. Now, again, I'm not saying it's not about Donald Trump or Bill Clinton. I'm not saying it's not about seeing what the disclosure shows. But a lot of this, both in terms of from a journalist point of view, where's the story, but in terms of why people on the left and the right and so many are angry about this comes from what Sharon Waxman writes about. Here's what she writes. She says, so often journalists like myself attempt to demonstrate to family members and voters in the far reaches of the country, away from the centers of power and money, that their conspiracies are false, that politicians are flawed, but that corruption is not the norm. It isn't how we all operate. I have the same experience as Sharon Waxman. People will say to me, isn't it all just corrupt? Aren't these. All these rich people just out protecting their powerful friends together? And Sharon Waxman and I both try to tell our family Members and people around the country. No, that's not the norm. Next paragraph. But the Epstein emails, the ones already have been released. The Epstein emails suggest otherwise. They suggest that, in fact, there's a widespread code among people with power and money who support one another, their pals, no matter what side of the aisle they're in, the club, no matter the sins of their members. Transgressions that get contextualized, explained away, understood. No matter how bad the things Jeffrey Epstein was accused of and did. Rich, famous people in the media, in politics, in business, in academia, they all hung him out. They all hung out with him. They were happy to go to his party, some happy to go to his island. We don't know what else they did. We don't know which people engaged in improper and illegal behavior. We just don't know that yet because the names are not out. Maybe we will. But what we do know is that they were happy to hang out with other rich and famous people, often convened by or around Jeffrey Epstein. And I think you're going to see more details about that and people we're going to need to explain it. One person who hasn't explained it's the President. Okay. And those are the. There are three figures in this story that I think loom really large. One's the president. Okay. Because he has said he didn't know about Epstein's behavior, but he's also said, through spokespeople and sometimes himself, implied he parted from Epstein because he didn't like his conduct. Trump flew on Epstein's plane when they were friends. Trump loves his own plane. I've never known him to fly on anybody else's plane. So I'm not accusing the President of anything, but I think it would be in the national interest for him to explain a little bit more about the history of their relationship and what exactly he knew about Epstein's conduct. I think that would be great, because right now it's a little unclear to folks that mystery of how their long, extended relationship occurred, what it was, what it consisted of, and how it came to an end. I think it would be good, right? Because there have been these contradictory statements. So that's one person around whom there's a fair amount of mystery. Another is Maxwell, Glenn Maxwell, who's now inexplicably in this prison in Texas, moved from one in Florida, cushy treatment after she did an interview with the deputy attorney general, trying to get her sentence commuted or get a pardon. Okay, what is that about? I. I've never. I, you know, I said at the beginning, I don't, I don't know of any story like the Epstein story. I've never seen the government stonewall on something so clear. Why was she moved? Every bit of reporting anybody's done who's familiar with the prison system says she shouldn't be in this, in this cushier prison, and the government just refuses to answer. So is she going to get a pardon or a commutation of her sentence? What does she actually know? The interview that the deputy attorney general did with her, they published a transcript. It's not the greatest interview of all time. Left a lot of unanswered questions, even for people like me who only follow this story casually. She absolved President Trump completely in her interview, but she also hung around with a lot of rich and famous and powerful people. And what is up with her? Because she clearly wants to get out of prison, even though she's in this cushier prison. So there's the Trump mysteries of the relationship, there's the Maxwell mysteries of what's going to happen with her, and then there's the Epstein mystery. Dead men tell no tales, but this man's been telling a lot. We've already seen a lot of his emails. We're about to see more of his, of his records, maybe more emails. The first set came from that, you know, the Epstein organization. But there's going to be more stuff about him, so we're going to learn a lot more about Jeffrey Epstein. But one thing that I'll cop to, because as you can tell, I'm not a huge believer in conspiracy theories, but here's something I believe, very skeptical. The man killed himself for a variety of reasons, based on people I know who knew Jeffrey Epstein, based on the circumstances in the prison the night he was found dead, the fact that the people who were supposed to be monitoring him didn't, you know. And again, I'm about to engage in the stuff I criticize in others. Have you ever heard of a case of somebody caught in the act of committing suicide and stopped? Have you ever heard of that? I'm sure it's happened, but I've never heard of it. Epstein, if the, if the guards had been on guard, they should have walked in and stopped him. They should have seen him on the video monitor and stopped him. They didn't. Now they chalk it up to they were shopping and sleeping and all this stuff just doesn't make, doesn't make sense to me. In addition, I still don't understand why he's in the cell by Himself. There's a whole bunch of other things. My point is, even though the government has said definitively Epstein killed himself, I'm skeptical. And what I like to see is when newspapers, Wall Street Journal, New York Post in particular, do this, they don't say he died by suicide or he committed suicide. They said he was found dead, and they could say was ruled a suicide. There are people who know Epstein well, including his family, who don't think it was. And I'm just certain that that needs more investigation. I'm open to believing that he committed suicide, but I'm certain it needs more investigation. Those three mysteries, Trump's relationship with Epstein, how it's. How it ran, how it ended, and why Maxwell's circumstances. What does she know? How does she think she's going to get out? Is she going to get out of prison? Why she's in this cushy prison. And then the question of Epstein's suicide, alleged suicide, those to me, are massive mysteries that don't get covered much these days, and they're unlikely to get covered much as we wait for this disclosure. And when the disclosure comes, people wait through it. But what I want for America is clarity. I want the conspiracy theorists to meet their match. I want them to get what they need to say, okay, this is what happened. The circle of elites around Jeffrey Epstein, some of them already, some soon will get their comeuppance, and they'll have to answer to their friends and their families, their employers, to their God, why did they continue to associate with them? And perhaps the answers to some is, I didn't really look into what he did, or I looked into it, but he served his jail time, or if they're being honest, he gave me access to power. But they should all account for it. They should all account for it. But what the country needs, and President Trump wants this, and he's right to want it, what the country needs is to put this to rest. Put this to rest. We cannot go into another year and beyond where America doesn't know what happened, who did what, who needs to be held accountable, who knew what, who can explain their behavior, who can't. Let's put it all out. Let's get it resolved, because that's what the victims need. That's what our politicians, including the president, needs. That's what America needs. We can't be a nation that chases conspiracy theories forever, right? So let's put out the information that can be put out. Let's explain what can't be put out. Let's have the president give a full accounting. Let's find out how Epstein died, and let's figure out what's happening to Maxwell. Let's do all that. Because if we don't, because if we don't, it'll spawn more conspiracies, more distrust in government. And the elites who do have responsibility here, they should all ask themselves, what are they doing now that's comparable? Maybe not exactly the same because Epstein was a unique monster, but what are they doing now that's comparable? What are they doing now that's fostering in Bernie Sanders supporters and MAGA people all over the country, tens of millions of us, a fundamental belief that the elites are corrupt and that they protect themselves. And you know why they have that fundamental belief? Because they saw it happen here. They saw it happen here. All right. Thank you for listening to that. I'm grateful to you. I want to hear what you think about what I said. Email me your thoughts on today's reported monologue. Send me an email nextup halpernmail.com Would love to hear from you. And of course, we'd love for you to subscribe to NextUp on our YouTube channel so you can watch the full episodes and get exclusive bonus content there from the show whenever it's posted. Just go to YouTube.com nextup halperin to sign up. Share it with your friends, too. Also, you can listen to the program. If you're not able to watch it because you're on the go, subscribe to my program, NextUp with Mark Halpern. Wherever you get your podcasts, make sure you have the downloads turned on. That way you'll be the first to get all the reports when the program goes live every Tuesday and Thursday, only here on NextUp. All right, we'll take a quick break, and when we come back, former Congressman Steve Israel, author of the Einstein Conspiracy and one of the smartest thinkers in the Democratic Party, will join us. Steve Israel is next up. Ask yourself right now, are you being lied to? Wall street insists the only way to have enough money to retire is to put your whole life savings into a 401k or an IRA and then roll the dice with it into the Wall street casino. But if that were true, why does studies show the average American following that advice will outlive their savings by a staggering 10 years? And even the man who vented the 401k says it's a monster that should be destroyed. It's time to get the truth and discover a better way to grow and protect your money. Bank on yourself. Is the proven retirement plan alternative banks and Wall street desperately hope you never hear about it gives you guaranteed predictable growth and retirement income. Tax free retirement income, built in inflation protection and much deserved and needed peace of mind. You can get a free report that reveals to you how you can bank on yourself and enjoy tax free retirement income, guaranteed growth and control your own money. Just go to bankonyourself.com mark to get your free report again. That's bankonyourself.com mark one last time.

Mark Halperin (30:13)

Bankonyourself.com mark Amazon has everything for everyone on your list. Like your husband who hauls out the 40 pound canister vacuum to address a single dropped popcorn. He'll spend 12 minutes setting up, plugging in and maneuvering. It's like using a fire hose to water a houseplant. Get him a cordless vacuum. And with Amazon early holiday deals, you can save big on home electronics. Now Dustin can skip the project planning phase and go straight to tactical crumb elimination.

Steve Israel (30:46)

The holidays mean more travel, more shopping, more time online and more personal info in more places that could expose you more to identity theft. But LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (30:58)

If your identity is stolen, our US based restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed.

Steve Israel (31:02)

Or your money back. Don't face drained accounts, fraudulent loans or financial losses alone. Get more holiday fun and less holiday worry with Lifelock. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com Specialoffer terms apply.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (31:19)

Joining me now and next up, former Democratic Congressman Steve Israel. Represented New York's Long island for many years and now not really retired, but no longer in public office, runs a bookstore, does government affairs, runs an institute of politics at Cornell and in his spare time writes books. Newest novel, the Einstein Conspiracy. We'll talk about that in the Congressman's view of lots of stuff right now. Congressman, welcome. Thank you for being here.

Steve Israel (31:47)

You know I'm a longtime fan. Thanks for having me on.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (31:49)

Great. Let's talk about the book first. What do you get out of writing novels? I know you're not doing it for the big bucks, so tell me what appeals to you about penning novels?

Steve Israel (31:59)

Therapy. You know, I was in Congress for 16 years, ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as chair for four. So much pressure, not unlike what many Americans go through. And I needed a release. My release was writing. So I did two political satires while in Congress and then tried something different out of Congress. And that was to write a historic spy thriller based on real events. Wakes up in the morning and write. And I love it.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (32:27)

Yeah, so Tell us about the book, tell us the plot, as much as you want to give away to tease folks, and what the genre is and who's it's intended to reach.

Steve Israel (32:36)

It's an historic spy thriller based on actual events. One, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to President Roosevelt in 1939 from a little cottage on Long island that is still there. And the letter warned Roosevelt that Hitler was developing an atomic bomb, that the science was perfectly viable, and said that we needed a research program. At the same time, we know that the Nazis tried on several occasions to do harm to Einstein to assassinate him. And so I conflate those two events in a spy thriller about the Nazis trying to pursue Einstein in America while he's trying to warn fdr. And I've got two FBI agents who are trying to protect Einstein and an uncanny sociopath Nazi spy operative who's trying to abduct Einstein in New York at the same time.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (33:35)

What kind of guy was Einstein?

Steve Israel (33:37)

He's very much a caricature. It's a great question. Einstein is very much a caricature. People think he the smartest person on earth, but at the same time the absent minded professor. He was a little bit of both. The thing I love most about writing this book was getting to learn about him. I read Walter Isaacson's biography, read everything I could about Einstein. He was a very conflicted guy. For most of his life he was a pacifist. And now he flees Nazi Germany and he sees the shadows of Nazism reaching America and he's challenged by his own pacifism and has to decide do I want to become involved in advocating for the creation of an atom bomb on the American side which could destroy an entire continent. In Europe, very much conflicted. And I take readers through those internal conflicts.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (34:32)

I love the COVID Tell people about the COVID shot and why you chose it.

Steve Israel (34:36)

Oh, thanks. So the COVID is a real photo taken of a conference called the Salvoi Conference where Einstein and his contemporaries would gather to debate the great issues and challenges of physics in the world at the time. And he would get into these fierce debates with people like Heisenberg and Bohr and Planck and others. And that photograph captures one of those moments and what I loved about it, you know, I didn't realize this until I really studied it. If you look at all of those physicists there, you know, they're standing straight, Einstein's sitting and he has his hand grasping his seat. And that was very telling to me. You know, what was he holding on to? Why did he pose like that what kind of vulnerabilities did he feel to have to hang on to that chair? And I built that into the storyline.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (35:26)

Yeah, every author has to make innumerable choices about the book, but two of the big ones are title and cover, cover art. And Steve Israel did not skimp a great title. And I just love the COVID And I see too many of my friends, they show me the COVID and they say, it's too late to change it. What do you think? And I'm always like, oh, my goodness, it's so fantastic. Even though if they'd sent it to me two weeks before, I would have said, scrap it. But this one is just perfect.

Steve Israel (35:53)

Thank you so much.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (35:54)

Now, you love books, and you love books so much you opened a bookstore, an independent bookstore, at a time when that's counter, counter to the trend. Not only, not only independent bookstores, but even, even the big chains have had trouble my. My neighborhoods. Barnes and Noble closed years ago, and I live in a pretty bookish area. Tell us about the store and how you thought it could be economically viable as a business and how it's going.

Steve Israel (36:22)

Well, I'm still trying to think about how it could be economically viable as a business. So when I was in Congress, not only was my therapy reading, but wherever I went in the world, my scheduler would tell me where the closest bookstore was. You haven't shopped for books until you've done it in Kabul, Afghanistan, to the sound of distant mortar fire. But those places are my sanctuaries. It's where I could decompress. When I left Congress, I decided that I wanted to own a bookstore. I moved back to Oyster Bay, Long island, which is where Theodore Roosevelt lived and died, wrote, read and wrote 7,000 volumes on his shelves, even today. And I was walking past a vacant storefront as Covid was lifting, and I went home to my wife and I said, I think I want to own a bookstore in that place. She said, what do you know about running a bookstore? I said, well, what did I know about running for Congress? But, you know, we will figure it out. It's been open for going on five years. It's the greatest thing I've ever done, and that includes going to Congress. I love it. There's no anger. People come in not to scream, but to just talk about a book. There's no finger pointing unless they're like, you know, scrolling a page. It's become a wonderful, wonderful place if.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (37:35)

You love books and even if you don't live on Long island, so you can't Go to the physical store, sign up to get the emails. I get them all. I open them all. I read almost every one.

Ashley Etienne (37:44)

And.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (37:45)

And they're just this. If you love books, you love the culture of books, and you want to be part of a book community, get the newsletter. It's free. Where can people sign up for that?

Steve Israel (37:53)

Steve, Theater is books dot com.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (37:55)

Yeah.

Steve Israel (37:55)

And I'm glad you mentioned that word community, because that's what we are. You know, it is a community, and that's what I love most about it.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (38:02)

Yeah, it's on my bucket list to come out there to get to the store. But I feel like. I feel like I've been there because. Because I've. I read the newsletter and I get the. Just such a great sense of community around it. All right, again, Einstein conspiracy. Ideal holiday gift, right?

Steve Israel (38:17)

Yes, Absolutely.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (38:18)

For the reader. Reader who loves a historical mystery. All right. Your friend Chuck Schumer. It's fair for me to call him your friend. Right. You've known him a long time. We're in the House. Were you in the House together?

Steve Israel (38:32)

No, he was.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (38:33)

He was already a senator by the time you got there. Okay. How would you appraise how his political fortunes are going? But a lot of people are being critical of him on the left, even some people on the right have not been too critical to talk that he won't run for reelection in the AOC May primarium. How would you just appraise how he's doing as the leader of the Democratic Party in the Senate and one of the leaders of the party nationally?

Steve Israel (38:54)

You know, I have watched and served with leaders in both the House and the Senate, and I don't think people understand the different pressures that bear on them. Uniquely, Chuck Schumer has multiple constituencies. Number one, he has his constituents in New York, and New York is a very challenging electorate right now. Number two, he's got his constituency among Democratic senators. They choose the leader, and so he's got to make sure that he's serving them. Number three, he's got his constituency among Democratic donors, and he's got to be responsive to them. Number four, he's got constituency among candidates, people who are thinking about running for the Senate as Democrats and people like Jon Ossoff, who has a very challenging race. So he's got to protect his incumbents. You put all those constituencies together, like being the Senate Democratic leader may be one of the worst jobs in America, but I do think he's handling it very well. I have to say he's handling it well because he is keeping his people together at a certain point. He knew from the get go that some would break on the cr. So he kept them together for as long as possible. And I get the criticism that he should have kept them together longer. But what law is there that allows a Senate Democratic leader to hold members hostage even when it begins to their position, begins to threaten their own interests? I think he did as good a job as possible under some very difficult and challenging circumstances.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (40:36)

So what, what would you attribute to what would you attribute the negative things we're hearing, for instance, from the far left of the party?

Steve Israel (40:46)

So I think there's a lot of anxiety in the party right now and it's, it's obviously generated by the existential threat that they perceive Donald Trump to be, that I perceive Donald Trump to be. You know, they would like to see more engagement. They would like, look, I'll give you a classic example. Somebody walked into the bookstore recently and said to me, you know what I don't like about the Democrats? I don't think that they're showing enough strength and opposition to Trump. I said, well, what would you like them to do? And the answer was they should have a hunger strike on the White House lawn right now. Okay. But there is that level of we want something done. It's easy. I'm a Mets fan, man. I get it. Pete Alonso strikes out. I want action immediately. That's not to liken this to a baseball game, but the stakes are so high with Democrats that I think that they would like to see greater energy, not realizing that there are all sorts of complications that impact that energy.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (41:50)

Let's talk about one of my favorite topics because I like to like to own the space. 2028 in your party's presidential nomination.

Steve Israel (41:57)

Yeah.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (41:57)

Here's a Resolved. Rahm Emanuel is a strong candidate for the Democratic nomination for president.

Steve Israel (42:03)

Discuss, Seconded and affirmed. And full disclosure, I'm working very closely with him. I talked to him twice yesterday, so I may not be the most objective person.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (42:14)

Okay. Are you, are you open? Are you to serve together? And we're very like minded about how to win and keep the majority, so I knew you'd be a fan. And his middle name is the same as your last name.

Steve Israel (42:27)

That's exactly right. Yeah.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (42:29)

Are you, are you supporting him or are you just helping anybody who asks these days?

Steve Israel (42:33)

I. Well, right now he's not running for president, so there's nobody.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (42:37)

But if, if Rahm runs, are you going to be for him?

Steve Israel (42:40)

Yes.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (42:40)

Okay. That's. I appreciate the forthrightness because most people ask that question of about anybody says it's too soon. So. Good to know. So make the case. Why? Because I'm sure you confront what I do. I know Ron pretty well, too. And. And I can make the argument that he'll be a strong candidate, but then there are people you and I know who dismiss it out of hand.

Donald Trump (42:59)

Yeah.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (43:00)

So. So make the case why Rahm Emanuel would be a strong candidate, not just for the general election, and I'm sure you think he'd be a great president. But make the case of how he wins the nomination in a party that's moved from far to his left in a lot of ways.

Steve Israel (43:12)

Two very simple propositions. First, he's talking about issues that resonate in battleground states. He's talking about the collapse of the American dream. He's talking about the fact that if you're under 35, your chances of owning a home are about 12%. Your parents, when they were under 35, the chances of them owning a home was over 50%. He's talking about the exorbitant costs that Americans are facing every day. He's talking about issues that resonate at kitchen tables, where it matters, in terms of an electoral path in Pennsylvania, in Wisconsin, in Michigan, in Arizona, in North Carolina, elsewhere. And secondly. And more Democrats need to be focused on those issues. It's proven by the victories of Abigail Spanberger and Virginia. Virginia. And Mikey Cherel in New Jersey. And secondly, look, I worked very closely with him when he was the chair of dccc. I was his chief recruiter. This guy just knows how to win. This guy pulls wins out of a hat. And we Democrats who all agree that Donald Trump is an existential threat, we need somebody who just knows how to win on those issues, and he's it.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (44:26)

Do you confront skepticism as I do about this?

Steve Israel (44:29)

I. Oh, sure, yeah.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (44:33)

And what do the skeptics say?

Steve Israel (44:36)

Some of the arguments I find offensive, frankly, which is, can a Jewish guy win? Can a Jewish guy with the name Israel, his middle name, win?

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (44:45)

Yeah.

Steve Israel (44:47)

So I just think that's a disqualified argument. Quite. Quite honestly. Some say he's too far to the right. Others say that there are others who may play better on a presidential stage. You know, look, I'll just take somebody who's demonstrated the ability to win.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (45:07)

What about the one I probably hear the most, which is in his governorship of the. As mayor of Chicago, he pissed off too many people on the left and that his record there will not allow him to survive a nomination fight. What do you say about that.

Steve Israel (45:19)

Well, that's what nomination fights are for. And so he's going to talk about his record, how he lifted people out of poverty in Chicago, how he created more affordability and accessibility to better educations, how he figured out how to make the city run better. There's always gonna be somebody who's going to disagree with him tactically, but I think the guy has a real record to speak to. Is he gonna satisfy everybody on the far left? No. But aren't we learning that in order to win elections, you can't be too far out on the left unless you're a Mondami. In New York is a different electorate.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (45:54)

Yeah. How well do you know Gavin Newsom?

Steve Israel (45:57)

I don't know him at all, other than to say hello to him in a crowded room and for him to say hello back.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (46:03)

Okay, I'll give you a thing, and you tell me yes or no you think it's true about Gavin Newsom. Okay.

Steve Israel (46:09)

Yeah.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (46:09)

Just yes or no. Go ahead. Successful governor?

Steve Israel (46:12)

Yes.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (46:14)

Phony?

Steve Israel (46:16)

No.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (46:18)

Clear front runner currently for your party's nomination.

Donald Trump (46:21)

Yes.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (46:23)

Vulnerable on his record in California in the nomination fight?

Steve Israel (46:29)

Don't know. I don't know those vulnerabilities because I haven't studied his record as much as. As you might have.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (46:36)

Okay. Clearly will be if he does run one of the top three fundraisers amongst Republican Democratic candidates.

Steve Israel (46:44)

To be seen.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (46:45)

To be seen.

Steve Israel (46:46)

Assume so, but, yeah, to be seen.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (46:49)

Yeah. Who would you put in the top tier?

Steve Israel (46:51)

Can I just say one thing on that? As you know, one of the horrible flaws in fundraising in elections is you can know three or four billionaires, and that puts you in the top three right now because the laws have been dismantled.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (47:03)

Yeah. Have you and Rahm talked about Ari running a super pac?

Steve Israel (47:06)

We have not.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (47:07)

You probably should. My recommendation probably should.

Steve Israel (47:10)

I'll tell you who said so.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (47:11)

Who would you make in the top tier of your party's nominees? Right. Right now, today? Not. Not predicting. But who are the candidates? You would say these are the most likely of our nominees?

Steve Israel (47:22)

Well, certainly Newsom, because he's been so visible. Look, he's dominated the field, and nobody has put themselves at that level yet. The question is, is it sustainable? If it is, then, you know, he's got a pretty good path. Rahm is focusing on visiting a variety of states. He's been meeting with members of Congress and others, but he's not at that visibility in terms of the Newsom visibility on his campaign.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (47:58)

So would you put anybody in the first tier with Governor Newsom at this point?

Steve Israel (48:01)

Oh, right now, I think by virtue of the fact that Newsom has just been dominating the narrative in social media every single day, I can't think of anybody that. But let me assure you and your viewers, it will be a pretty crowded field at the end of the day. There's lots of time. We gotta get through the midterms. And by the way, the midterms will also define the presidential lineup among Democrats. Let's see where that brings us. And that will help define how big the field is for president.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (48:32)

Yeah. Have you been asked to give advice to Mayor Elect Mamdani?

Steve Israel (48:36)

I have not. And I'm not surprised.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (48:39)

Yeah. If I know you've not, you've not been the biggest supporter of his. Of his candidacy. If he did call you and ask for advice, what would be the sort of the three things you tick off for him to be a successful mayor?

Steve Israel (48:48)

I wrote a piece. I have a column in the Hill, and I wrote my own advice to mom, Dominique, Donnie, because it's not like he would, you know, race out to exit 41 on the long Island Expressway from New York City to meet with me. And I said, look, focus on what's happening in the Midtown Tunnel and not the Middle East. Number two, recognize that you can appeal to voters in Brooklyn, New York, nationally. We need to appeal to voters in places like Brooklyn, Iowa. So just understand that your media market does not necessarily define the Democratic electorate around the country. And number three, find a way to fuse your generational talents in voter turnout, in digital strategies, in the mechanics of street campaigning. Find a way to fuse that with the kind of messengers we need in more centrist places. And you can be the next leader of the Democratic Party or one of the next leaders of the Democratic Party and help us win nationally.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (49:51)

You and I know people who are very insistent that he's an anti Semite. And I just. I think using that phrase should only be done with clear evidence. Do you consider him to be an anti Semite?

Steve Israel (50:02)

I consider some of his statements to be anti Semitic. I think when you. Very honestly, when you condemn Israel for what has happened in Gaza, and you have the right to condemn Israel, but it's hard for me to find a condemnation of what Hamas did, a sustained condemnation of what hamas did on October 7, that creates a double standard. And those double standards are usually based on some antipathy that you may have. And I've urged him to speak with greater clarity.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (50:36)

I know Jews, and you probably do, too, who you could say the same thing about. Would you say that they're Anti Semitic as well?

Steve Israel (50:43)

No, because those here, I have a very simple litmus test. You have the right to criticize Israel for what is happening in Gaza. I'm deeply troubled by what is happening in Gaza. If you were silent, whether you're Jewish or not on October 7th, but you have stood up and shouted out about Israel in the aftermath, you have a double standard.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (51:07)

But if you do that and you're a Jew, would you say that Jew is anti Semitic if you were quiet?

Steve Israel (51:12)

Well, look, I'm not sure I would define. It's a good gotcha. I'm not sure I would define, you know, technically define anti Semitism extending to Jews and non Jews. But clearly you're operating based on a double standard. And that's why I didn't say Mandami was anti Semitic. I said his double standard reflects a form of antisemitism.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (51:35)

I understand, but I'm asking if a Jew, and it's not a hypothetical, I know Jews who have the same practice condemned one and didn't condemn the other. So I'm asking if you would condemn them as making anti Semitic, anti Semitic behavior as well.

Steve Israel (51:49)

So I want to make sure I understand your question. So somebody who is Jewish, who has condemned Israel for Gaza but did not.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (51:55)

Speak out, which you're saying is an anti Semitic pattern. There's Ben Dami. Would it also be an anti Semitic pattern by a Jew, did the same thing.

Steve Israel (52:04)

There's a very. There's again, a double standard that is based, in my view, on a political anti Semitism.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (52:12)

Okay. Who's your favorite member of the Trump Cabinet and why?

Steve Israel (52:17)

Wow, that's a very good question.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (52:22)

You know when people say that. When people say that 20 minutes into the interview, I say, I guess the other questions were no good.

Steve Israel (52:28)

You know, I think.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (52:28)

Right.

Steve Israel (52:29)

Look, I have to say there's a distinction between Trump 1 and 2.0. Trump won. I could have answered that question in a second. I would have said Mattis, I would have said Kelly, I would have said Cohen, I would have said any number of people. He realized going into the second term that he made a mistake in the first go around. The mistake wasn't that he went too far. It was that he didn't go far enough and that he was restrained by responsible institutional people. And so now he has assembled a cabinet of enablers, people who won't question his worst impulses, people who won't restrain him. Which is why I have a hard time telling you which of the cabinet members.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (53:10)

I'll offer you two. I won't Offer you Long Island's Lee Zeldin? Because I bet you'd say no. Now, what about Scott Bessant or Marco Rubio? Do you think both those are enablers who aren't doing a good job?

Steve Israel (53:19)

Look, I think. I mean, again, the bar may not be that high. I think Bessant, Rubio are more willing to try a responsible approach, but at the end of the day, they haven't demonstrated a willingness to do what Kelly or Mattis or others did in the first term, which is just to say, no, you cannot do this.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (53:40)

Yeah. How are you using AI in your life?

Steve Israel (53:43)

I try not to. I try and avoid it. I'm so concerned about it. Just read a great book by a colleague of mine. It's Nelson DeMille's son, Alex, wrote a great book called the Tin man, about an AI autonomous weapons system that tries to take over a military base, and it scared their living daylights out of me. I just try and avoid it. I'm so concerned about. We're super. AI goes. Not like the stuff that we deal with now, but where super intelligence takes us.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (54:11)

But just to. Just to respectfully ask you a probe on this. You're worried about it, and I get that, but wouldn't you be better equipped to think about it as a public policy issue if you were using it yourself to understand its dimensions?

Steve Israel (54:25)

Well, I do think about it as a public policy.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (54:27)

Right. No, but I'm saying. You're saying you don't use it in your own life, so does that leave you on the short end of understanding its capabilities? It's possibilities. It's dangerous.

Steve Israel (54:36)

It's a fair argument. You know, I get my information. I actually read fairly deeply on AI, talk to people in the field. And full disclosure, I'm a member of a board of a. Not for profit, unpaid, that's trying to deal with some AI issues. And so, yeah, those filters are on me, but it is a fair argument that maybe I should subject myself to it. Well, actually, I am subjected to it. You can't avoid being subjected to it.

Donald Trump (55:02)

Right.

Steve Israel (55:02)

Whether you like it or not, know it or not.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (55:04)

Yeah. All right. I'll come out of Long Island, I'll visit the store, I'll give you an AI seminar, and. Okay, we'll go get some tacos because there's good tacos.

Steve Israel (55:12)

Pizza. No, pizza. Pizza. Long Island Pizza. Maybe there's some good tacos, but there's pizza and bagels everywhere.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (55:18)

Okay. Pizza and bagels. The book is a third novel, right? It's your third novel.

Steve Israel (55:23)

Third, yes.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (55:24)

Einstein Conspiracy. It's a historical thriller and you'll love the portrait of Einstein. Fascinating and an incredible moment in American history. And don't miss the COVID Steve Israel, former New York congressman and now owner of a bookstore. Incredible country we live in. Congressman, thank you. Very grateful to you.

Steve Israel (55:42)

Happy holidays.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (55:42)

Thank you so much.

Steve Israel (55:43)

Happy holidays. Thank you.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (55:44)

All right, next up, conversation about everything Epstein and free speech issues. Also health care. Ashley Etchen, former senior advisor to Vice President Harris and Speaker Pelosi, as well as Amber Duke of the Daily Caller and a co host of the Hills Rising. That's next up. Attention all American homeowners, you need to listen to this. The FBI has been warning about a type of real estate fraud. It's on the rise. It's called title theft. And your equity is the target. Here's how this works. Criminals forge your signature on a single document, then use a fake notary stamp and file it with the county. And just like that, on record. They own your home. Using your ownership, they can take out loans against your equity and even sell your property. And you won't know about any of this until foreclosure or collection notices show up in your mailbox. That's why I've partnered with Home Title Lock, so you can protect your equity. And find out today. If you're already a victim, use my promo code mark@hometitlelock.com, you'll get a free title history report and a free trial of their million dollar triple lock protection. That's 24,7 monitoring of your title records, urgent alerts to any changes. And if fraud does occur, their US based restoration team will spend up to $1 million to fix it. Don't be a victim. Protect your Equity today. That's hometitlelock.com promo code mark again, hometitlelock.com promo Code mark.

Steve Israel (57:12)

So you've got your streaming subscription sorted. But every now and then, live TV FOMO hits hard.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (57:18)

Good news with passes by Sling.

Steve Israel (57:20)

Get instant access to live TV when you want it. Big football game tonight.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (57:24)

Grab a day pass baseball series.

Steve Israel (57:26)

Try a week pass show or movie marathon.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (57:29)

You guessed it, weekend pass.

Steve Israel (57:31)

Introducing passes. Get the live TV you love for the day, week or weekend starting at $4.99. Sling lets you do that offer applies.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (57:39)

To Orange Day pass restrictions apply.

Mark Halperin (57:42)

Ondeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team or bridging cash flow gaps, OnDeck's lo up to $250,000 help make it happen fast. Rated A plus by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five star trust pilot reviews.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (57:58)

Ondeck delivers funding you can count on.

Mark Halperin (58:01)

Apply in minutes@ondeck.com depending on certain loan.

Ashley Etienne (58:04)

Attributes, your business loan may be issued.

Mark Halperin (58:05)

By Ondeck or Celtic bank on Deck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans an amount subject to lender approval.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (58:13)

All right, next up and joining me now, two very smart people to talk about what's on going going on. First, Ashley Etienne, former senior advisor to the Vice President United States Kamala Harris and also the former speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi as well as others, currently the CEO of our own cool shop at Jen & Saint and Amber Duke, senior editor of the Daily Caller and the co host of the Hills Arising. Ladies, welcome. Thank you for being here.

Mark Halperin (58:35)

Thanks, Mark.

Ashley Etienne (58:36)

Thanks for having us.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (58:38)

Let's start with Epstein, who I talked about earlier in the program and the gap between elites and real people in the country. Ashley, how would you describe how elites see this story versus real people?

Ashley Etienne (58:53)

Well, I mean, I can tell you real people for the most part it feels like are less concerned about this. I mean it's clearly an issue that bubbled out of the MAGA base. This was, you know, conspiracy theory. Now that has gone wrong and I think many of them are surprised by what what is coming out in the Epstein files. It's not what they expected but but I do believe that they're to be and this is sort of what we're seeing in the polls is a focus and a concentration on the part of the American people, not at both levels, elite and regular folks that are most concerned about their pocketbook issues that this is not a big top priority for many Americans. I think it's a concern for his MAGA base more than anyone else and Democrats obviously are weaponizing it to their advantage.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (59:41)

Amber, the way Ashley framed it only heightens my interest and understanding because Ashley saying elites care about it more than most real people. Some real people do. But elites care about more. And some people tell me it's just the opposite that in fact the politicians have have not really shown concern about it. So how do you see that question of how it's seen differently by elites and by the grassroots of both parties?

Mark Halperin (60:07)

Well, I think both of you are right to an extent because what the polls show is that voters do not rank the Epstein files as a top issue. But when they're asked about them, they care a lot. Right. They have really strong opinions about the files being released, but they wouldn't put this up in their top five or maybe even top ten Most important things. But I think the reason why Republicans are so cagey about it is because one, Trump needs to keep his base happy, especially heading into the midterms, because as we know, over the past few election cycles, when Trump is not on the ballot, the Republicans have a difficult time getting those low and mid propensity voters who go for Trump to show up to the polls. So you have to keep those people motivated and excited. So if releasing the Epstein files does that, Republicans who are on the ballot next year are going to be thinking about that and willing to break with the president over it. At the same time, I think also Republicans are worried about the Epstein, Epstein files because of this promise from the Trump administration that this was going to be the most transparent administration in history. And there's been several moments regarding the Epstein files that have felt like the opposite of transparent. So if that's breaking a fundamental campaign promise and points to a broader thematic issue with the Trump administration, that's beyond the base, right? That's actually independents, moderates, people who you need to trust you in order to get them to continue to vote for Republicans in the midterms as well.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (61:34)

All right, I want neither of you to laugh at me or roll your eyes, but here's an exercise I sometimes engage in the West Wing. President Bartlett, right. This idealized president, he was a liberal, but there's still this concept of the idealized president, how a president who was interested in the national interest would handle something. Donald Trump is far from that on the Epstein matter. He's not been truthful about some things. He's not explained things clearly. But I think about, for instance, to just give one example, I could give an example for either party. President Bush, when he was dealing with the issue of stem cell research, really struggled with it because there were issues of life on both sides. And his, his own party was divided, the country was divided, and he talked to a bunch of experts on it. He gave a very thoughtful speech in the Oval Office, used the Oval Office, right. To, to really try to show that this was a national moment that he wanted to address. Ashley, if, if this president or any president wanted to address the Epstein situation, how would they do it? What kind of speech could they give to unify the country to explain and including this issue of elites and trust and skepticism of elites, lack of trust in the criminal justice system, what would that look like if a president wanted to be a fictional president, not caught up in the politics of the moment, but really thinking high mindedly?

Ashley Etienne (62:49)

Yeah, I mean, I think the focus would Be on the victims, you know, getting justice for the victims. I think that would be sort of a, a soaring speech about that and really looking at policies to address human trafficking. Right. I mean the exploitation of children, I mean that would be what an idealized president would do. But in this particular case, what Donald Trump is doing, it's to your point, is the very opposite of that. I mean, I caution everyone around the Epstein files, cuz I'm not sure we'll ever get what people think that they want out of these files. Because Donald Trump has now taken advantage of a loophole in the law, in the bill itself that would enable DOJ to withhold documents, especially if there's an ongoing investigation. So now Donald Trump has gone so far as to ask the Department of Justice to investigate Bill Clinton and other liberal donors and liberal icons as it relates to this particular investigation so that those documents at the end of the day can be withheld. So the reality is I think we should just caution our expectations around this. Cuz Donald Trump's never gonna give himself up if he even is in these files. Even more so in none of his rich billionaire friends that could also be in the file. So I would just say we should caution ourselves. But that is how sort of idealized president would do it. And what Donald Trump is doing, which is on the very opposite end of that spectrum.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (64:13)

Amber, stand by for one second. I'm gonna follow up Ashley, with you on one thing. The documents that were released from the Epstein estate included emails from Epstein that were pretty incriminating against President Trump, at least suggestively. So they successfully seem to have batted that away. But doesn't that suggest that the President doesn't have full control over these documents? If he had the capacity to whitewash things that were negative about him, wouldn't he have found a way to whitewash those?

Ashley Etienne (64:42)

Well, I mean, I don't know, legally, I'm no lawyer, what the divide is there? Or President Trump has access to those documents. But it is my understanding that DOJ has even more documents that could be even more incriminating. Not just for him, but for a whole array of people. So yeah, I mean he had no control over those particular documents, but he does have control over what DOJ has. And what I've sort of found interesting is how he made a big spectacle of the documents bringing in right wing influencers to give them the binders with all the documents in it saying that he wasn't in them, but he's actually in them. So I'm not sure why he has taken this approach. He should have just ripped off the band aid and let the documents go and deal with it all at one time. But this, to Amber's point, really reinforces this notion that Donald Trump doesn't keep his promises, that people are feeling betrayed by the fact that he promised he was gonna release these documents. Now he's walking that back, he's retreating, promised he's gonna lower prices. Prices are only going up. So I think a lot of people are feeling betrayed by him, from elites to regular people, and especially within his own party.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (65:50)

Yeah. Amber. Tuesday morning, for at least the second time, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Ro Khanna. Mr. Massie stood with the accusers and victims and, and put them front and center. Some of them have asked the president to meet with them. He hasn't. At least not that we know of. Again, my idealized president might meet with them, maybe privately, maybe maybe have them stand behind him. And it's, as Ashley suggested, champion reforms that would keep this from happening again. Can you think of any reasons why the president wouldn't have met with them?

Mark Halperin (66:21)

No. I mean, the most obvious one would be that if Trump is indeed part of the documents in a way that is incriminating, but I think more likely he's protecting perhaps friends of his who might be in the documents. There's also speculation just generally from political commentators that maybe the scope of incrimination is so wide that it would be so shocking to people that they're trying to keep this under wraps to prevent some sort of, like, national panic. I mean, who really knows? We won't know unless they're released. But I think he should have met with them. I think he should have been championing their cause because that's what he was, again, doing before he actually took office and apparently looked at what was in the documents. And Ashley raises an important point about the potential redactions that could be had. And I think it's important to point out here that the victims themselves have said that they are on board with certain redactions to protect people who maybe are named in the documents, but weren't actually involved in the sex trafficking ring of protecting certain victims who don't want their names out there. They're in favor of that, but they also want the American people to be able to have access to, to the important parts, to actually understand what Jeffrey Epstein was doing. And, you know, the other part of this, too, is that a reason why this scandal was so shocking to people is because it involved allegedly underage women. There's also women who were of age, who were trafficked as well. And I think those victims kind of get lost in the larger conversation about this and their stories are just as valid.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (68:02)

Yeah, very good. Very, very well said. A couple points and then we'll move on. Do either of you think I'll just take yes, no, or maybe? Did Jeffrey Epstein commit suicide? Yes, no or maybe?

Ashley Etienne (68:15)

I mean, I can't even get into it. I think matters less whether or not he committed suicide. If, if what's in these documents is true, you know.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (68:27)

Well, but if somebody, if somebody killed them, that would matter, right?

Ashley Etienne (68:31)

It would. I mean, to contribute to the conspiracy theory and, you know, who's behind it all and who's trying to silence the victims and the documents, all of that. But I mean, it's. It's not something, honestly, Mark, something I've ever thought about.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (68:46)

Okay, Amber. Yes, no, maybe.

Mark Halperin (68:49)

I give it a maybe and I'll explain why. The idea that this is a guy, and you see this more in his emails, he's almost sort of childlike himself in the way that he is very arrogant and he clearly enjoys this certain kind of lifestyle where he's like a high flying guy who has connections with all of these wealthy, important people and he can get all of these women and he can do whatever he wants with them. Going from that to rotting in a prison cell. I don't think it's a far stretch to say that he would do that act. At the same time, there's so many weird inconsistencies surrounding how he was able to have the access do that. Regarding the. The cameras being down, the guards apparently not preventing it, I think the most likely explanation is that he was given the freedom to commit suicide, Meaning there was either an order or just a lack of care from the people in the facility to keep him alive. And so he was given that opportunity.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (69:55)

Amber, you're so level headed.

Mark Halperin (69:59)

You caught me on a rare day, Mark.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (70:00)

Yeah, all right. That was very level headed. All right. And in terms of Maxwell, you know, as a, as a reporter who considers my job not to have fun, but to hold powerful interests accountable to the public interest, I just find the failure of our government to explain why Maxwell was moved to a cushy prison to be kind of extraordinary. I mean, the government stonewalls about stuff all the time, but this is a very black and white thing. Someone who was convicted of horrible crimes is giving cushy treatment in a very high profile case. And I'm just wondering if you share my frustration or. And what does this say about the system that she can get away this, the government can get away with doing this with no accountability, no explanation for the public. Amber?

Mark Halperin (70:45)

Yeah, I think it's a huge miscarriage of justice. And Todd Blanche of course went in and had this long interview with her, this hours long interview where it was suggested that she was going to actually give names of the co conspirators, if you will, of people who had actually participated in the sex trafficking ring. And then none of that information was ever released publicly. And yet Ghislaine still got this special treatment to go to this low security female prison. If there is a trade involved, if there's a quid pro quo, then I think the American public deserves access to what was traded from Ghislaine.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (71:22)

But how could it be, to stay with you for a second, how could it be that they don't, they don't have to answer what's wrong with the system?

Mark Halperin (71:28)

Well, there's so much lack of trust in institutions and media for a long time, I mean really two decades, that I think it's easier for government officials to get away with this kind of thing because people don't trust who's asking the questions.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (71:45)

Yeah, that includes me. Ashley, does this bother you as much as it bothers me? Yeah.

Ashley Etienne (71:50)

I mean, but you know, it's. This whole issue is just, I find very icky. As a mother of a young daughter, it makes me all very, it makes me very uncomfortable that we have a President of the United States that is trying to sweep this thing under the rug, is, you know, is executing a cover up and a pressure campaign to keep these documents hidden and out of the plain sight of the American public. It also bothers me even more so that he's sort of taken over the Department of Justice. There is no division. I've worked in two White Houses. Now he owns the Department of Justice. I mean, and so you look at what he's done with the January 6th people, perpetuated January 6th, those who tried to cheat the 2016 and 2020 elections, letting them off. I mean, all of it is just disgusting and to quote Amber is just a miscarriage of justice on so many different fronts. I mean, this particular issue is an important issue, but it's isolated in that it affects a number of women. It's regrettable. But even bigger issues like the sanctity of our democracy and what it means, I mean, the president's just abusing his power to game the system to his advantage. And I just think that it's something that all of the American people should be concerned about, not just as it relates to the Epstein files, but as it relates to even bigger, broader issues like the principles of our nation.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (73:16)

Well said. All right. Talk about healthcare. It seems like we're in a moment now where the Democrats would like to reform the Affordable Care act and the Republicans are kind of admitting they're not trying to repeal it. They want to, they want to fix it, to reform it, whatever word you want to use. And it seems to be realistic. We're not going to get some comprehensive, global, massive piece of legislation. But there's some, there's some smaller fixes that need to be done to make, make the system work better, to make for it more affordable for those who are covered by it. Big challenge, because that's going to require bicameral, bipartisan cooperation. And for the Democrats, that means cooperating with Donald Trump. And for the House Republicans, that means cooperating with Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries. So, Ashley, you've got great experience in these dynamics. If the President said, ashley, I want to collaborate with you to get a bipartisan, bicameral, medium sized health care bill done, how would you. What would be the building blocks, not in terms of the policy, but in terms of process to get people comfortable trusting each other to make that happen?

Ashley Etienne (74:19)

Well, I mean, I think where you have to start is get a common boogeyman. I think that's what really creates or a common problem that we all agree needs to be solved. But a common boogeyman always sort of brings the two parties together. And I think the president sort of laid it out. He talked about the insurance companies. When I was on one of your other shows, an expert said, we don't have a health care problem, we've got an insurance company problem. And I think that's an opportunity that Democrats should take the President up on. I think, you know, my. And I was talking to Chuck Schumer about this not too long ago. I think my concern is that the Republicans messaging around ACA has become crystallized. I mean, in a way that I've never seen it before. Plus, we've never had to defend ACA from a defensive posture. So my point is Democrats should not fall into sort of our typical pattern, which is to defend ACA and say what people are experiencing is not true or point the finger and say it's really the Republicans fault. I think we should take the President up on his offer to address the insurance companies. I mean, I think that's something that everybody, the general public could agree with and get behind. But the real question is not whether we want to actually fix this problem. For me, it gets back to a little bit of what Amber said going into the midterm. Everyone's trying to gin up their base. And so MAGA Republicans love nothing more than to hate Obama. So the question is whether or not they wanna fix anything related to Obamacare, because then that would neutralize it as a weapon going into the midterm election. So that's my real concern. But so my advice to my party is don't fight the Republicans on this. Go for, go with them. If they wanna address insurance companies, let's go along with that path and see if we can make this fix happen.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (76:02)

Now, would you throw the pharmaceutical companies in there too? They're a pretty good villain as well.

Ashley Etienne (76:06)

I mean, yes, absolutely. I mean, definitely. I mean, especially if you could get Republicans on board, which seems like that's possible, but yeah, I mean, absolutely.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (76:15)

Yeah. Amber, would that you think that's a plausible path to say we're going to team up against Big Pharma and Big.

Mark Halperin (76:22)

Insurance to an extent. I mean, there's the new right, as we call it, which has this more populist bent, which is interested in rooting out, you know, corporate cronyism and the idea that big corporations get a pass on all of their bad behavior because they're raising the gdp. So you see that among people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, like Josh Hawley. So I think there is a potential pact to be made there, but there is still sort of this lingering, aggressively Puritan free market part of the Republican Party that will be more difficult to get on board. I mean, the Republicans key issue on health care has always been that they don't have a comprehensive plan on what they want to do with it. Right. And this is going back to the first Trump administration, even outside of when they were trying to get rid of Obamacare, or do the real repeal and replace. There was a group of think tanks, conservative think tanks in the D.C. area, who decided to team up and collaborate on trying to get a comprehensive health care reform package together for the President to use. And that sort of disappeared after 2018, 2019. Nobody talked about it anymore. And now you have Republicans split on either extending the subsidies from Obamacare, getting rid of them, replacing it entirely. There's just not a clear vision from the party about what to do about it. I do think I'll disagree with actually a little bit on this one point about Obama and Obamacare kind of being the boogeyman, because a lot of. And the reason I Say that is because a lot of the people who flipped from blue to red to vote for Donald Trump in 2016 were those union members. Their health care was grandfathered in under Obamacare. So the people that are really impacted by this, that are part of the Republican base, are basically non union, lower middle class folks, which is a sort of smaller, maybe less important piece of the party in terms of Trump's base, obviously still matters, but I don't think Obamacare is the looming boogeyman that it really was maybe like 10, 15 years ago for the GOP.

Ashley Etienne (78:29)

No, my point is that Obama is. And you attach Obamacare to it. I mean, people, his base can.

Mark Halperin (78:34)

Oh, yeah, I don't agree with that either.

Ashley Etienne (78:35)

Yeah, I mean, I think it bears out in the numbers. I mean, maybe to your point about those who switch from blue to red, that apply to them, but that's not who I'm talking about in terms of needing to agitate and aggravate your base. But if you just mention Obama's name in any of these rooms, these people get fired up and worked up. So it's gonna be interesting to see how this thing shakes out. But Obama definitely is still a great mobilizing tool as much as Trump is for us, for them.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (79:06)

Yeah, I want to talk about speech and responsibility of people in public life. The President was asked the other day about Tucker Carlson and about Nick Fuentes, and he basically said, Tucker can book whoever he wants on his show and then they can come on and then the public can decide, you know, do they want to be for Nick Fuentes? They want to denounce him, but he didn't denounce either of them. Now, there are plenty of people, everybody in public life. The Democrats aren't called on as often by the press to denounce irresponsible things said on the left. But I'm wondering, first of all, do you believe that there's a bright line between irresponsible and out of bounds? In other words, does Nick Fuentes hold views and espouse views that are so out of bounds that there's a greater obligation to denounce him, or is speech just speech? Either of you want to take that on?

Ashley Etienne (80:01)

Amber, you want to go first?

Mark Halperin (80:02)

Yeah, sure. I mean, I have complicated feelings about this. So I, I will say that I think looking back at Nick Fuentes start in his rise to become this really popular figure for young men makes clear that the de platforming route did not work. He was really summarily excommunicated from the conservative movement back in 2015, 2016, and still built a massive plat, even while being banned from places like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc. And so I think there's a worthy goal in trying to actually understand why this movement is happening, why he's amassing so much popularity. And I do think a lot of the criticism of Tucker comes from people who did not watch the entire interview. There was actually significant pushback on his most heinous views, which is this idea of blaming issues with the Israeli lobby in the US or the Israel government on Jews writ large. And Tucker approached that from a Christian perspective, trying to appeal to the fact that Nick Fuentes is himself a Catholic. And I think people were more upset by the tone in that. Tucker wasn't screaming at him or agitated. I don't think that Republicans feel at this point as well that. And you alluded to this, Mark, that they've been given a fair shake in terms of this condemnation ritual that they're expected to participate in, and a lot of them have decided to just opt out. Like, while we don't see the same action happening on the left, we don't see the media demanding that people denounce Democrats who engage in misconduct or say things that are considered out of bounds. And so we don't feel like we have to participate in that either. It's basically like a suicide of our own party if we do, and so we're just going to step away.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (82:03)

Yeah, Very well said. And there's no doubt that I think that characterizes, for instance, what the vice President feels, although he has on occasion denounced. Ashley, do you see a bright line between, you know, pro Nazi sentiments versus, you know, rude things or, you know, things that are just short of that? Or is it all just speech and either condemn it or you don't?

Ashley Etienne (82:27)

Well, you know, I mean, personally, I definitely see a bright line between the two. I think, you know, you know, there. There is speech that. I mean, the problem I have is with speech that. That promotes, antagonizes, engenders violence, and perpetuates a system that is set up to otherize people, to discriminate against people, to continue to foster a level of hate within our country. I mean, and the reason why is because I'm affected by it. I. Every day of my life. There's no doubt about it. I mean, I had one of my neighbors, when I first moved into my house, knock on my door and say, this used to be a great neighborhood. And by the way, that you can't get a house under $750,000 in that neighborhood used to be a great neighborhood until they started to put up these Black Lives Matter signs. So, you know, people feel threatened. I mean, you know, there's consequence to speech. And so that's where I sort of draw the line, which is people, you know, people don't. People process these things in different ways. And it creates problems for the very fabric of our nation, who we say we are as a nation, all of these systems that run our country. And I'm not surprised at what Donald Trump said. I mean, given his own history. I mean, you could go back down to his first, his announcement when he came down the escalator and called Mexicans rapists. So this is absolutely no surprise, but it's disheartening, it's scary, it's sad. It makes people like me incredibly emotional and question where is our place in this nation? Especially when you have a president that really is fomenting and not denouncing such hateful speech. And again, I think you ask people, there's clear correlation between even the events that have been perpetuated against our president, you know, his two attempts. Right. I mean, there's. If you go and look at the source of those particular problems there, it's because people are being inundated with all of this hate speech that is just counterproductive to who we are as a nation. So it's scary, scary dark times, and especially when you have a president who doesn't stand up against this stuff.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (84:57)

All right. Holiday season approaches, and I don't want to end on scary, dark times necessarily, even though I take your point and really touch by the way you described your neighborhood. That's a horrible thing to have to deal with. I'm sorry, you do not surprise, unfortunately, what's going right in America? What's something you'd like to single out that's currently going right and gives you optimism and hope?

Mark Halperin (85:18)

Amber, this is going to be controversial. I think the mass deportation is growing really well. I'm happy that the Trump administration is taking that seriously. On the flip side, his comments this week and last week about the H1B visas and how we don't have talented people in America, I thought was a slap in the face to American workers. And so many people who are have left the workforce entirely because they can't find good work. But so far, I think the numbers on the mass deportations have been good and in line with what was promised on the campaign trail.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (85:50)

Ashley, what's something you see optimistic in the country right now?

Ashley Etienne (85:53)

Yeah, I mean, I think the president's in an all out retreat. You look at Epstein, healthcare tariffs, redistricting, hopefully he's reading the tea leaves. Hopefully there'll be a recalibration to a more reasonable posture, one that's more unifying, one that's more forward looking for the nation, one that's rooted in a vision of us progressing as a nation and being able to compete in the world. That's what I find very encouraging, is that the president is really listening, feels like he could be listening to the American people because Tuesday was an all out rejection. Rejection. You know, his voters are feeling betrayed. He's underwater on every issue under, you know, 63% disapproval on the economy. I mean, it's, it's, you know, the numbers are in positions I've never even seen before. So that's what I find encouraging, is that it feels like there might be, he might be on the precipice of a recalibration.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (86:48)

Ashley, Amber, so grateful to you both if I don't speak to you again. Have a great holiday. Thank you for coming and hope to see you back here soon.

Mark Halperin (86:55)

Thanks, Mark.

Interviewer/Host (Mark Halperin) (86:56)

Thank you. All right, that's it for today's program. We'll be back on Thursday, another brand new episode of Next Up. You can subscribe anytime on YouTube or wherever you get your podcast. So you always know what's coming. Next up, we'll see on Thursday.