← Next Up with Mark Halperin
Next Up with Mark Halperin
Why the Epstein Story is Sticking, Ro Khanna’s Quest for Answers, and What the Media is Ignoring
01:12:50
Today, Mark Halperin breaks down why the Trump–Epstein scandal won’t go away—and why it may be more politically dangerous than any controversy Trump has faced before. He unpacks what to watch for in Trump’s social media posts and what might be driving his cryptic responses to questions about Ghislaine Maxwell. Then, Rep. Ro Khanna explains why Epstein has become the defining symbol of government transparency—and why Congress must act now to stop the conspiracy spiral. He lays out the bipartisan push for a new investigation and why the pressure for answers is hitting a breaking point. Plus, Dan Turrentine and Batya Ungar-Sargon join Mark to debate what the media is missing while the Trump–Epstein story dominates the headlines—from Tulsi Gabbard’s explosive “deep state” allegations to whether Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 because of Russia… or her own campaign.
Loading summary
Transcript109 lines
- [00:03]
Mark Halperin
Welcome in nexters. I am Mark Calperin, editor in chief of the live digital video platform two Way and your guide here to everything next. Joining us today will be Congressman Ro Khanna. He's a Democrat from California and he normally likes to talk about economics. He's thinking about running for president in 2028, and all of a sudden he has found himself front and center, the leading person in Congress, maybe in either party, but certainly amongst the Democrats championing the effort to make the Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein related material public. He's the co sponsor, amongst other things, of a bill that would force the Justice Department and the Trump administration to release nearly everything they have on Epstein, including names of people in the documents, within just 30 days. That's an effort that's being stymied by the speaker of the House and other Republicans. The White House doesn't support it. We'll talk to the congressman about where his efforts stand and what he thinks the deeper meaning is of why this Epstein thing has become such a big deal in our politics and in our conversation. That bill that Khanna is championing that he's the co sponsor of has some pretty significant Republican support. The co sponsors include Thomas Massie, Tim Burchett, Nancy Mace, Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Their partnering with Mr. Khanna is unusual, as is the discharge petition they're working on to try to force the hand of the leadership of the Republican Party. We'll talk to him about all that. Then we'll continue to talk about that issue, as well as the Tulsi Gabbard effort to highlight what she says was illegal behavior by Barack Obama and his administration on the Russiagate story. Joining me for that will be my two way colleagues, Botjungar Sargon and Durin Turrentine. And then next up before our guests join us will be my reported monologue. You know, I've been confused by the degree to which the Epstein stories caught on and then confused by what's going on with Tulsi Gabbard. And I've been trying to make sense of how they connect. And the bottom line is there's something going on with Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. Is it what critics say, which is he's terrified of what might come out about him, or is it simpler than that? And so I'll share my thoughts with you about where that stands, what might be going on. It's interesting to me because I've never seen Donald Trump behave quite like this. And if you go back and look as I have at all his past statements about JEFFREY epstein, There's something quite off about it. Now. Again, I'm not the kind of reporter who assumes the worst in anybody. I'm also not the kind of reporter who ignores flashing signs where something might be up. So I'm going to talk about what's gone on this week with the administration over the last couple of weeks to change the subject and why so many people I talked to, including some Republicans, including some supporters of the president, are suspicious about what's going on. It's clear now that this is not going away and not just because of the efforts by Congressman Khanna and others in the House, but they've set in motion. Interviewing GISELLE Maxwell, there's still the fight that the administration's having with the courts about releasing some of the grand jury work. And as I always say, Halperin's seventh rule of Washington, when something becomes famous for not being public, the pressure to make it public is pretty strong. So if the president hopes to change the subject, if he hopes this goes away, I think he's going to have to adjust his expectations about whether it will or not and how long this will take. So as I said a little later, Bot Jungar Sargon, Dan Turntine, Congressman Ro Khanna trying to make sense of what is a pretty confusing story. But next up, my reported monologue on what I think is going on maybe with Donald Trump in this extraordinary story. So stay tuned. All of that coming next up. Ever since President Trump was sworn in for his second term, this administration has moved very quickly, breakneck pace to get a lot done. And while they're moving quickly, they cannot manage your personal savings. That is up to you. One of the smartest ways to protect your financial future is through diversification, especially with gold from my trusted friends at Birch Gold Group. In the past 12 months, gold's value has jumped 40%. Central banks are buying gold at record levels. Global instability is right now at its highest in decades. Birch Gold makes owning physical gold incredibly easy. You can convert an existing IRA or your 401k into a tax sheltered IRA backed by physical gold or simply buy gold to store securely in your own home safe. Right now, text to the number 989-898, the word next and Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on gold. Again, text next to 989-898 and you'll get that free info kit. There's no obligation, just some useful information with an A plus rating. With the Better Business Bureau and tens of thousands of happy customers, you can join them at birchgold. Take control of your savings today. Text the word next to 989-898 all right, next up, my thoughts about what's going on with the two giant stories currently getting so much attention in Washington and in our political world. One is what's happening with the Jeffrey Epstein material and the demand for transparency on the part of so many. And then the other is what the Trump administration has really been pushing, which is the notion that crimes were committed by Barack Obama and others in conjunction with the 2016 election and Russia. Busy week. Lots of things, things regularly labeled bombshells. There have been revelations, a lot of political feuding and policy pushes. But this flurry of activity to some extent is a smokescreen for the story now we know will not die. In fact, the Epstein story only seems to be growing, sometimes bubbling under the surface. But the main thing that I think is the through line here. The reason why this is being driven in part is the public demand for accountability for elites. But what's driving it now is Donald Trump's connection to Jeffrey Epstein. And make no mistake, there was a connection. Right? They were close friends. And whether he did write him a birthday note or not, whether the videos we've seen are just the tip of the iceberg, whether the stories we've heard from some accounts from accusers are true or not, and I don't assume anything's necessarily true, they had a relationship that's to me again, continues to be one of the undercovered aspects of this story. They were close. How close? What did that entail? We don't know, but they were close. And that's a big part of what's driving it now for the press, certainly for the Democrats and for some Republicans. So we had Tulsa Yabbard, head of national intelligence, whatever her own issues, revolving this story of the Russia collusion matter. When she went to the White House podium on Wednesday to present the case to me, she looked uncomfortable. I don't know her that well, but I've seen her in situations where she's comfortable and ones where she's uncomfortable. She looked uncomfortable. Now, many people I talked to, including some Republicans and nearly every Democrat, says that she was encouraged to put out this bombshell set of accusations to create at least a short term distraction. It'd be one of many distractions if that's the case, done, to try to take the spotlight off of the Epstein matter. She'd say she was for long term justice. And there are plenty of Republicans who are now heavily invested in this story. So while the media, which has largely ignored her Accusations have not been taken off the Epstein story by what she's done. It does rally the president's base with justification. There's no stronger pull for MAGA to bond together than what was done to Donald Trump by the Independent counsel investigation and by charges about Russia. But this, this isn't a defense of Donald Trump. This is going on offense, implicating the Clintons, the Obamas, the cast of characters like Mr. Brennan, Mr. Comey, who have long been villains in Maga. I don't know what Tulsi Gabbard's motivation is. I don't know what role Donald Trump might have played in her bringing that up. But I do know that if the point of it was to take the media focus off of Epstein, to take the congressional focus off of Epstein, it's not going to do it. Now, there's also the Clinton connection, right? The Clintons have long been concerned about Epstein. And I can tell you, as a matter of fact, regardless of whether President Clinton's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was different than has already been reported, but there are countless pictures of the two of them together. It's clear that Maxwell and Epstein knew the Clintons associated with the Clintons, just like with Donald Trump, though I think people assume we know the contours of the relationship. We don't. We don't. But this notion that this is a Republican controversy is wrong. And many people who are Democrats besides Bill Clinton are no doubt going to be listed in the Jeffrey Epstein material. Much was made this week about the Wall Street Journal reporting that Donald Trump's named in the materials relate to Jeffrey Epstein that the government has. So is Bill Clinton. Okay, so is Bill Clinton. Now, regarding Barack Obama, I don't know he's got any connection to Jeffrey Epstein, but there's no doubt that what's caused the Gabbard accusations to be so explosive is basically charging a former president, United States, with treason. Barack Obama rarely responds to anything Donald Trump says about him or much of anything else. But he did respond here, his office denying the accusations. Barack Obama, when he was president, was secret, secretive, made top secret decisions, and, and there were some efforts at cover up, drone attacks, assassinations. But I have to tell you, no matter what negative things anyone thinks about Barack Obama, he, I believe, would not engage in overtly criminal behavior. It's not his style. It's not his reputation, it's not his jam. He is, he is, throughout his presidency, was concerned about that. Now, maybe I'm wrong, maybe maybe he committed a crime. In this case, I'm open to anything. But I'm just telling you, for all his flaws as a person and as a president, whatever negative things you think about him, he worked very hard to stay on the right side of the law as president of the United States. We'll see what that investigation comes up with. Now, as I said, the Clintons aren't part of this story now. So is Barack Obama. But front and center is the president. And Donald Trump is, based on his public reaction, not just in the last couple months, but historically to Jeffrey Epstein. There's something going on there. I don't prejudge what it might be, but I look at what he said, how he said it, okay? This is a guy with an infamously checkered and reckless history regarding women. Just in what's public, his publicly adulterous affair with his second wife, Marla Maples, his grab him by the pussy comments that came out during his first presidential campaign, the Stormy Daniels situation. They're endless examples of Donald Trump's rude, mean spirited and vulgar comments about women that he's feuding with. Could give you lots of examples of that. Megyn Kelly did a pretty good job of summing that up when she moderated the debate back in 2016. In all these cases, Donald Trump has faced down every criticism, okay, everyone. He has survived these. These are not in how he has dealt with them. These are not shootings on Fifth Avenue. And in that way, he's like Bill Clinton. For all of the associations he's had with tawdry sexual matters, he survived them. They don't seem to have hurt him in a decisive way. But I can tell you this about Donald Trump without having discussed this matter with him. He is savvy enough, canny enough, and aware enough and sensible enough to understand that a connection to Jeffrey Epstein, it's just different. As damaging as those other sexual matters might have been, Epstein is different most obviously because it involves, at least as far as Epstein was concerned, the abuse of young victims, but also the profiteering, that kind of strange Eyes Wide shut elitist secrecy. All of that is a hard no for the American public, okay? And participating in this kind of exploitation of girls and women, okay, that could be what might be the only effective state to Donald Trump's unshakable power, the loyalty generated by his movement and his capacity to walk through political and personal controversy that would end the political career of almost anybody else, okay? This is not shooting someone on Fifth Avenue. This is not shameless dissembling or chaos creation. It's not classic tomcatting that other politicians also have survived. But partaking in Epstein's sick offerings of human beings as party favors or pastry assortments, that's different. And Donald Trump knows that. He might know that because he's concerned about what he'd be accused with. But he also knows it's different because he recognizes public attitudes, public mores, okay. He's not keen on being associated with Jeffrey Epstein. And when you look at what his spokespeople say when they're forced to respond on Epstein, they always make a point of emphasizing that Donald Trump cut off the relationship. And there's no reason to doubt that. There's no reason to doubt it. But at the same time, there's also no reason to doubt that they had a years long association, the contours of which we still don't know. The Wall Street Journal says Donald Trump wrote Jeffrey Epstein a letter for his birthday book. I don't know if it's true or not. The President denies it. I'll say again, I don't prejudge the President might be telling the truth. He might not. But that letter, if it's accurate, if it's authentic, to me, it's not about whether Donald Trump wrote something bawdy or not. There's a guy who, you know, associated with porn stars, right? It's not about that. It's about a reminder that even now we don't know the contours of their relationship. There's so many questions about it. We don't know the President. I want to talk about any of that. And I don't know if he does an interview and a reporter has the temerity, the nerve, the gumption to ask him for the details of his association with Epstein. I don't know what he'll say. I do know that the flurry of the assortment, odds and ends, cats and dogs and distractions the President has tried to put out over the last several days and weeks. It's not stuck, okay? It's not kept the Epstein story from growing. And I've been surprised. I did not think it would have this sustaining power I've talked here about. Part of why it sustains is because it's a through line with all the things that the American people have decided favor elites over everybody else. And obviously there's an interest in it because it involves money and sexual behavior. But other things are not, it's clear now, going to replace this Now I have to say that with some trepidation, with some humility, because think of all the big stories this year during the Trump 2.0 that seemed like they would dominate our lives for a good long time. Tariffs, Ukraine, Gaza, the deportations in California. You know, these things come and go. That's the nature of news. And sometimes it happens organically. The press gets bored, a bigger story replaces it. There's not much new to say. And sometimes Donald Trump uses his extraordinary capacity to change the news cycle, to change what people are talking about. I think Donald Trump, after a strenuous attempt over the last few days, including posting untrue social criticism of his own supporters, which he'd never done before, I think he probably knows now this is not going to go away. And we've got some things that are out there. His own advisors from the Justice Department meeting with Maxwell in prison this week. The attempts by the administration so far failed to get federal courts to release the grand jury material. And of course, the drumbeat in Congress, including by some Republicans working with Ro Khanna to get force more disclosure. Okay, now look, there are millions of Americans who have never cared about the Epstein story and millions more who have moved on. For them, the story fades with time, like so many stories does, so many stories do. But it also has an extraordinary hold on tens of millions of people. And some of those people are maga. Some of those people are not. Some of those people are. Are interested in it because it's an interesting story. But a lot of them are interested because of justice for the victims. They're interested in it because they believe that this is a test, a test of Donald Trump, a test of American government, a test of whether elites will be held accountable and the truth will be known. Okay. Something has shifted here. This story has assumed an importance and energy and momentum that I did not expect. And I can't tell you that it will continue, but it feels today like it will. It always bears repeating. Always. The elastic participants of this story is not due primarily to the Prurian elements. The reason it persists is because the fundamental ugliness and the societal imbalances at its core. So watch Maxwell. Okay? She should be watching. She should have a set of eyes installed in the back of her head. But she's trying to figure out how to use whatever leverage, whatever resources she has to save her own skin, whether that's to stay alive or to get out of prison. Who knows? Who knows? We want to know what she has to offer. Some people associated with her are now saying she's got stuff to offer, that there's stuff she's never told federal authorities that would be of interest. Can you imagine if she's before Congress, and Democrats and Republicans get to ask her about how she operated, both in general, but also with Donald Trump and Bill Clinton. You know, Donald Trump and Bill Clinton share other friends, other associates, but Maxwell is different. And this is a woman who people barely heard her voice. People don't know what she's going to say. And recall amongst the many odd reactions Donald Trump has had whenever the Epstein story has come up over his whole 10 years and elective life. He was asked about her trial and he said he wished her well. Now, maybe that was innocent. They were friendly. Maybe he was just wishing her friend well, but he didn't announce her. Okay, so let's watch. Let's see how the President posts on social media, as always, for clues to whether he thinks this is a potential big problem for her. A stake through his heart, how he's feeling about it. I don't think he wants to be asked about it, but he will be. He will be. It's not going away. The media doesn't want to go away, and they are focused on this now as a story about Trump. There are obviously truly important and impactful national implications of this. But the only way that the press is going to be able to cover this is to be strong, trustworthy, unbiased. Okay? This is a time for deep and fair reporting. Even handed headlines, leads, sound bites. We need in the media to cover this complicated story. Good judgment, a clean agenda. Okay? The twisted roots of what this Epstein stagger cannot be unearthed. It cannot be exposed. Without an aggressive and impartial set of news organizations. Donald Trump wants to change the topic. And we have to remember that there are other important stories. We have to think about the victims, about truth, about justice, about a story that we now know, unlike Jeffrey Epstein will not die. Epstein may be dead and buried, but this will continue. And for Donald Trump, that presents, at a minimum, a frustration, a frustration that his agenda, his successes that he's had are not being covered the way he would like them to be covered. Okay? That's a big part of the story, but so is. So is without any doubt, the question of his relationship with Epstein. I am not a suspicious person, unlike some Democrats, unlike some people in the media. I'm not assuming that Donald Trump put Tulsi Gabbard up to try to create a change in the story. I'm not assuming the worst about Donald Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. But the building blocks for me remain. He shouldn't be making decisions in this case because even though he broke off his relationship With Epstein, by his own account, as best we can tell, they were close friends. The level of closeness is something still to be figured out, but they were close friends. He shouldn't be running this thing, but he's chosen to. And he's chosen to try to get the story to stop. Limited disclosure, the two things he's trying for talking to Maxwell, asking the courts to put out the grand jury material that's done nothing. That's on most everybody's list of people who want disclosure. But it falls far short of what the public is demanding, what members of Congress are demanding. It's possible that the end of July, the month of August, with Congress away and the news cycle slowing down a bit, it's possible that we won't see a ton of revelations. But I don't believe now that when the Congress comes back after Labor Day, I don't believe that they're going to drop this. I believe they're going to continue it. And what endures here? What endures here is the desire to see the documents, but also what endures is this mystery. How is Donald Trump connected to this guy, and why does he react the way he does? If I could interview the president on this, I would ask him about the origins of the relationship. I would ask him what he liked about Jeffrey Epstein, why did they like spending time together, and then clear the air about what he knew about Epstein's conduct. Don't assume the worst about the president, but let's get to the bottom of what he actually saw. So many of the elites, Donald Trump is an elite. So many of them who had a relationship with Epstein, whether it was close or not, whether they went to his parties, whether they were around him. So many of them claim they never saw anything amiss. Some of them even went so far to claim that after his conviction in Florida and after he was incarcerated, briefly, he went to meetings, sometimes on serious topics. It wasn't just parties. He went to Harvard on a regular basis and met with senior officials there and distinguished academics. You didn't find one person so far who wasn't a victim. These famous people, including President Trump, who said, you know what? In retrospect, I saw something, or at the time, I saw something, and I kept quiet about it. Now, Epstein was a very smart guy, very devious guy, very conniving guy, and perhaps he hid everything so brilliantly that he was the ultimate in compartment compartmentalization. Maybe. But I think that part of what's driving this now, without a doubt, is that the media, the Democrats, and more than A few Republicans wonder what is up with Donald Trump. The irony is the president's desire to make this story go away has only fueled it, because I'm not the only one who looks at the way he's handled himself, the way he's talked about this, not just now, as I've said, but over years, and wonders, what is that about? You don't have to have a PhD in Trump studies to say. String together his squirreliest answers and you will see something weird. I'm going to use a little bit of a crude metaphor here, but I think it's appropriate. Mike McCreary, who was Bill Clinton's press secretary, very able guy, talked about when dealing with the Monica Lewinsky story, that the best way to deal with it was telling the truth. Slowly telling the truth slowly runs counter to one of the most fundamental PR adages, which is, get it out. Get it all out now. My crude metaphor is, let's say you eat a bad piece of salmon and you need to throw up sometimes. We've all done this. You throw up a little bit and you hope. Well, that's probably. I hope that's it. Throwing up is an unpleasant experience. So I'm gonna. I'm gonna see if that's enough. Even though you know it's not. There's more in there to upchuck. The way the president's handling this, going for limited disclosure after resisting it, he's trying to keep some of it down. It will not work. It's clear now. It will not work because everybody wants to know the truth now. Now, the speaker of the House is carrying water for the President. Mike Johnson, John Thune, less so. There are a lot of members of Congress who are sticking with the president on this and agreeing with him that, you know, everybody should move on, but not the Democrats and not some of these Republicans, the ones who are partnering with Ro Khanna in particular, to demand more. And I think until Maxwell speaks publicly, until she speaks publicly, I don't think this will go away. I'm eager for the truth. I'm eager for the truth not to heckle the president or keep him from getting credit for what he's accomplished. I'm eager for the truth because truth is important here for history, but also because it's quite clear now that this is a test of government. It is a test of accountability. And it is a story like the O.J. simpson trial and so many others that's captured the public imagination. Not everybody, but enough people that it's going to have to be resolved and the president and his relationship with this is going to have to be resolved. So I'll keep watching. I'll keep reporting on it. But what I'm here to tell you is this ain't going away. No matter how many things the president tries to throw out there to make it go away, it's not going away. And he should embrace that because if he continues to fight it, ironically, he'll continue to propel it.
- [26:36]
Botjungar Sargon
All right.
- [26:36]
Mark Halperin
Tell me what you think about what I just said. Tell me about the reported monologue and what you think I'm right or wrong. Send me an email nextup halperin gmail.com again, nextup halperin gmail dot com you can always find this program every Tuesday and Thursday and through the weekend on X, on Instagram and on Tick Tock Handle there on all those platforms is @nextup Halperin. And if you like, if you like to watch me rather than just listen, you can always watch the program on YouTube, on our YouTube channel. It's YouTube.com Next up, Halperin, so grateful to you. This audience continues to build. And I couldn't be prouder with my colleagues of building something from scratch along with the help of the good folks at Red Sea Adventures and the Megyn Kelly Network. But we are proud to be part of your lives and we hope you'll share the program with others and let them know you like to watch and listen. All right, next up, Congressman Ro Khanna of California. And then after he and I talk about Jeffrey Epstein and other matters, joining me will be two of my colleagues from the two way platform. That's Dan Turntine, who also is part of the morning meeting with me and Bachangar Sargon. So stay tuned for all of that after this break. And then what's next up? All right, let's be honest. The American dream, it's changed. You can forget the white picket fence, at least for now. For most Americans, the real dream, it's getting out of debt. If you're feeling the pressure from rising prices, mounting credit card debt and just trying to stay afloat, I want you to know there is, in fact, a way out that is done with debt. They've got just one goal, break you free from debt permanently. They're not pushing loans or bankruptcy on you. Instead, their tough negotiators go straight to your creditors, slashing what you owe, wiping out interest and eliminating penalties. And they don't stop until your debt is gone. The very best part here, most clients see more money in their pocket in the Very first month. You have worked too hard to let debt steal your future. With done with debt, your dream of being debt free is actually possible. Visit donewithdet.com talk with one of their experts. Consultation is completely free now. Some of their solutions are time sensitive, so don't wait. Go right now to donewithdebt.com again. That's donewithdebt.com all right, next up, Congressman Ro Khanna, Democrat from California. Congressman, thank you for being part of the program today.
- [29:06]
Ro Khanna
Thank you, Marco. It was a pleasure.
- [29:08]
Mark Halperin
I want to ask you about some of the specific things that are moving around on this Epstein matter, but, but just more generally, a couple questions. I don't historically associate you with this kind of issue, and yet you've become the leading Democrat in Congress on pushing for transparency. How did this happen? Was it by accident? Why are you in the forefront on this?
- [29:29]
Ro Khanna
Well, I've always pushed for free speech, for transparency, for political reform. I've spoken out against big PAC money, don't take any PAC contributions. I've spoken out against banning stock trading stoke spoken out for a restricting members of Congress from becoming lobbyists. So this to me is part of the broader political reform. And Thomas Massie and I have had a partnership for many years. I introduced, we introduced the Iran War Powers Resolution together. And so when I said, look, let's release these files as part of transparency, Thomas Massie said, well, why don't we team up on this together? I really didn't think it would become that big a deal. I thought everyone would just vote for it and we'd move on. It's really the fact that they've seen stopped the vote that has been as big a deal and that 11 Republicans have joined on.
- [30:21]
Mark Halperin
We normally the way the branches work think about the executive branch as being in charge of criminal investigations, of grand jury material, of, of doing what needs to be done to hold people accountable who break the law. We don't normally associate that with Congress. And of course, there's thousands of cases, federal and state cases, where there are questions about what happened. Why is this case, why is it so important in this case that your branch of government play a role in trying to seek public information?
- [30:54]
Ro Khanna
Because it's become a symbol for transparency. It's become synonymous with whether our country is protecting the rich and powerful at the expense of ordinary people, whether there is no elite accountability. And it's President Trump who raised the stakes. Look, during the Biden administration, there were courts that were ordering the release of these files in 2021. And in 20, 24. And then President Trump and Vice President Vance said that those 24 releases were not enough and that when he became president, he would release them. And no one said anything. I mean, for months he was going to release them. Pam Bondi then comes and says, there's an Epstein client list and hundreds of people have not been prosecuted. Then she walks it back and says, well, there's just a file, but then you have a memo basically saying this whole thing was made up where there's nothing there and we're just going to walk away. And at that point, it becomes a matter of trust with the American public, which already doesn't trust government. And so for me, as someone who's been pushing for reform of our political process, I thought, let's do an amendment to have the release.
- [32:00]
Mark Halperin
Totally get that. And I'm pretty sure I agree with all the facts as you just laid them out. But there's questions about transparency with the fda, with the Pentagon, with all sorts of things. I still don't get why this is not just for you. But if accepting your premise for the country, why is this case a symbol? I'm not asking you to defend your position. I'm asking you to use your understanding of the country. Why is this case more of a symbol for the need for transparency than what, you know, FDA decisions about our kids, our kids, nutrition or drugs?
- [32:32]
Ro Khanna
I think it has to. It comes after people felt that the financial crash, bankers who crashed the economy weren't held accountable. Then they see that these multimillionaires are pouring in millions of dollars into the political system. And there's a sense that people who are well off have done well in this country. And those who are working in middle class have gotten shafted, either because jobs have gone offshore or wages haven't gotten gone up, or the financial sector has exploded at their expense. And so here you see a story of hundreds of powerful and rich, largely men, who may have been engaged in sex trafficking or sleeping with underage girls. And of course, that offends the sensibility of every American, regardless of political party. It's the one total taboo. You don't sleep with underage girls in America, and there's no accountability. And so Donald Trump comes out and he says, well, why has there been no accountability? These are the types of people who need to be held accountable. The Democrats didn't have enough with accountability for these elites. I'm going to show them that this corruption isn't going to be there. That's the premise of maga. In some ways, to take on this system and Epstein becomes a symbol of it. And I think that his walking it back, it's what's hurting him in his face.
- [33:59]
Mark Halperin
Besides Jeffrey Epstein and maybe Prince Andrew, have you seen anything in the publicly available evidence to associate any man with having sex with underage girls in conjunction with Jeffrey Epstein?
- [34:14]
Ro Khanna
No. And I don't want to just throw out names for such a serious charge. Obviously there are names that are in public of people who have interacted with Jeffrey Epstein who may have been at some of those parties. Now, I was on Lawrence o' Donnell last night and the lawyer for the victims was there and he said of the hundreds of women who were involved in the abuse or in some cases rape, only less than 50 were underage. But there still were women who were abused at these parties and engaged in non consensual activity. But this is, I think why we need transparency. And the transparency is what the victims want, according to the lawyer. But I think if. Mark, you've watched politics a long time, I think the President's making it worse. I don't think anyone cares if his name happened to be in the Epstein file unless there was a serious bombshell allegation about some specific underage girl. I think what they care about is he promised that he would expose all of this and now he's walking it back. And I don't understand from a political matter why he just doesn't release the files.
- [35:20]
Mark Halperin
So let's ask about that based on your knowledge and gut, given this is something he didn't promise repeatedly but suggested he would do. His administration is filled with people who have been dedicated to this. His base obviously cares about full transparency on this. What's your gut or knowledge about why the President doesn't seem to be as committed to disclosure as you are?
- [35:44]
Ro Khanna
Look, let me give the best case of the benefit of the doubt in this country, you're innocent until you're proven guilty. There may be hundreds of people on those files, some of them who maybe took money from Epstein or had a business dealing with Epstein. And having those names out there, it could be tarnishing people's reputation. Even if there was not enough to charge, that's the sort of best case for not releasing them. But in this case, given the stakes, I think he needs to call for a release if there's something embarrassing there in it from him personally, assuming that he did not engage in sex with underage girls. I think the benefit of being transparent outweighs that. And it's surprising to me frankly that he's not pushing for that release as sunset and so the American people can assess the evidence and move on. This isn't going away.
- [36:40]
Mark Halperin
What's your appraisal of the speaker of the House, whose commitment to disclosure and transparency also doesn't seem to be very strong, going so far as to adjourn you to not so to try to not have to deal with issue. What's your appraisal of his motivation for doing that?
- [36:55]
Ro Khanna
I'm disappointed. Mike Johnson's a friend of mine. We came into Congress together. He's a family man. He's kind, he's civil. He's shown great leadership on Ukraine, where I actually was one of the first Democrats to say I would vote for him. And here initially his instinct was release everything. And then he actually introduced a competing resolution to Massey and my resolution saying, let's just assent to Congress, release everything. It's not binding to your point about the separation of powers. And he still didn't have a vote for that, which means that he must have had tremendous pressure from the White House. He's suffering politically for this. Members in his caucus are suffering for this. Members of his Rules Committee are taking terrible votes. The headlines are that he's adjourning Congress for doing the business of passing a budget from doing a normal business because he doesn't want the Epstein files to be released. That just feeds into the conspiracy that there's something to hide. I think it's one of his first really political missteps. I mean, I've had ideological disagreements with him, but his political mistake.
- [37:57]
Mark Halperin
But are you prepared to say that it's unambiguously clear that he's doing this to protect the President?
- [38:03]
Ro Khanna
I don't see any other motive. I mean, it's certainly not to help his members. I mean, his members on the Rules Committee did not want those votes. His members, as was seen in the Oversight Committee yesterday, many of his members voted actually to subpoena the Epstein filed. Colmer, the chair of the Oversight Committee, has said that he will issue the subpoena. So I think he's putting his members in a difficult position.
- [38:28]
Mark Halperin
You've got a few dozen or so, I guess around a dozen Republican House members joining you and Mr. Massie in your vehicle to try to get more transparency. Are you hearing from other Republicans who say they agree with you, but they don't want to cross the White House?
- [38:48]
Ro Khanna
We've heard from other Republicans who voted, for example, to subpoena and the Oversight Committee who say, yes, let's get the files out. But we don't want to be taking being on your petition because it could mean signing a discharge petition. And a discharge petition means that the speaker, it's overruling the Speaker. That's a pretty drastic step. The fact that you have 11 Republicans is enormous. When Massey and I did the Iran War Powers resolution, to give you a context, we had exactly one Republican, Thomas Massie. So this is unusual.
- [39:20]
Mark Halperin
Let's talk about some stuff that's moving around right now on this. The so called birthday book, which the Wall Street Journal reports includes a body letter from President Trump which he denies. I guess you learned just in the last 24 hours that that book is in the possession of the Epstein estate and therefore exists physically. The Journal suggested it was at least seen by the government. Maybe they made a copy. Why is it important to you to as you said, you're going to do to see if Congress can subpoena that. Why should Congress have that birthday book? What public purpose would that serve?
- [39:56]
Ro Khanna
Well, one, it would give transparency. It's recent subpoena, the full Epstein files. That would be ideal. The DOJ is going to be difficult in complying with that subpoena. It would be the DOJ having to enforce the congressional subpoena. Would the DOJ sue itself or prosecute itself for contempt of Congress? Probably not. Will the speaker sue the DOJ for contempt of Congress? Probably not. So how can we get the information while we're fighting with the DOJ for transparency? Well, let's get at least this book that's in the hands of the private lawyers. They do have to comply with congressional subpoenas. And I think it just will be much easier to get and get some information about who were the people involved in the sex trafficking and money laundering.
- [40:40]
Mark Halperin
Okay, but it doesn't, it doesn't follow necessarily that if you've got a letter in Jeffrey Epstein's birthday book that you were involved in sex trafficking. Right?
- [40:47]
Ro Khanna
Absolutely. But I think the American people are fair. I mean, look, there are a lot of people who were probably mentioned in the files who were innocent. Someone Jeffrey Epstein gave money to in a nonprofit, some politician who he contributed to. I mean he was a wealthy guy in New York in the social environment. And I think the American people are perfectly capable of making that determination. But if you just continue at this point, when you've had the President call for the release, when you've had Vice President Vance call for the release, when you bet Pam Bondi say there's a client list, if you continue to hide it, this thing is going to feed more and more cynicism. And I guess, ultimately, Mark, that's why I care so much about this. I want to do big things, as you know, on economic patriotism, on a 21st century Marshall Plan for America, having the government do moonshot like investments. If we don't have basic trust in government, how are you going to support my economic patriotism or certainly or Medicare for all when people don't trust the government to be working for them? And so, as a progressive, transparency and trust in government is extraordinary. The Epstein, candidly, I mean, it's not like I was some, like some people since 2008 vocal about the Epstein case, but I view the Epstein case now as becoming a large, pure symbol for trust in government.
- [42:03]
Mark Halperin
I've seen a number of your colleagues asked the question why, if this is such an important moral issue and an issue for restoring trust in government, why, why did your party not do anything about this when Joe Biden was president and you had majorities in the Congress? I'm not even going to ask you to answer that because it's unanswerable. But I'll ask you this question.
- [42:22]
Ro Khanna
All I'll say is that there was a court process. The court did release documents in 2021 and in 2024. Now, you could argue that there should have been, we should have been more vocal. But then Donald Trump said, look, the court process wasn't enough. He's going to expedite it.
- [42:39]
Mark Halperin
I'm not even going to ask you because there's no answer. But there is this question of Bill Clinton. There's great suspicion among some that the reason the Democratic Party has not aggressively done this in the past is because of fear that this would be embarrassing or worse for Bill Clinton. Are you, how would you describe your level of concern that pushing for disclosure could hurt President Clinton?
- [43:01]
Ro Khanna
Not much, for two reasons. One, without mentioning names, there's some very senior people to Bill Clinton, some of his closest aides who reached out, encouraging me to continue doing what I was doing, not mentioning Bill Clinton, but just saying that we should be on the side of transparency. I doubt they would be doing that if they really had concern.
- [43:20]
Mark Halperin
Let me, I'm sorry, let me stop you on that one. Is that people so closely associated with Bill Clinton that it's like, it's clear they were doing that on his behalf.
- [43:28]
Ro Khanna
Not on his behalf, but they so closely associated with him that, that, you know, you would know that they would never argue for anything that could in any way hurt President Clinton. These are people who would defend whatever President Clinton did and have just utmost loyalty to Clinton.
- [43:48]
Mark Halperin
And second, number two.
- [43:49]
Ro Khanna
Yeah, number two, look, if it comes out that Bill Clinton was at some of these parties, Bill Clinton engaged in inappropriate conduct, though not with underage girls. I'm not sure that that's going to be a surprise to the American people. I think a lot of that is baked in in terms some of his personal weaknesses. I don't think that that is the reason not to release the files.
- [44:14]
Mark Halperin
What do you think will happen next?
- [44:17]
Ro Khanna
I think there's going to be a drip, drip, drip of things coming out. You know, they went to the judges for the grand jury release. The judge said no. My sense is that they'll try to have some document release or some document drop over August and then in September, really is when this is going to come to a head. My expectation is that the President will keep looking for ways to release some of it and hope to satisfy the base. But I think he should just get it over with, release the files. And if he does that, I think he would quickly restore trust. Now, the one big danger is that the Wall Street Journal article actually was the only time that we started to see slippage with some of the MAGA folks who are supporting us. If this becomes about let's get Donald Trump and let's get Donald Trump's behavior, I think that could create a backlash where MAGA rallies around him. Again, if this is more about let's have transparency and accountability for hundreds of people who may have been engaged in sex trafficking and financial crimes, then I think you have the broader coalition.
- [45:28]
Mark Halperin
All right, Congressman Ro Khanna, California Congressman, grateful to you and hope you'll keep us informed on this because I know you want to move on and talk about economics, et cetera, but right now you're at least your party's point person on what, as you suggest, is going to be a long running narrative. So grateful to you for making time and do hope you'll come back.
- [45:45]
Ro Khanna
Thank you, Mark. Appreciate it.
- [45:47]
Mark Halperin
All right, next up, two of my colleagues from 2way, Bhatyan, Gar Sargan and Dan Turrentine. We'll talk more about Epstein. We'll talk about Russia, Russia, Russia and other stuff in the news. That's all. Next up. Stay with us. Everybody needs to help make America healthy again, regardless of your political leanings. And that starts with what we all put in our bodies. I move around a lot. I'm busy working, traveling, dealing with stuff around the house. I need a snack all the time. That fuels my body, not poisons. It Paleo Valley's 100% grass fed beef sticks. They're clean, high quality and free from that chemical junk that so many other brands sneak into their product. Most so called healthy beef sticks at big box stores. They are loaded with gross preservatives like citric and lactic acid. That is not true of Paleo Valley. They use old school fermentation to keep their sticks fresh. No chemicals, just real food. That fermentation also supports gut health which is something everybody should prioritize. We deserve better than those ultra processed junk products pushed by the same industries that are making us sick with bad stuff. The system may be rigged, but we don't have to play along. Paleo Valley beef sticks come in five delicious flavors. I love them. All made from grass fed grass finished beef sourced from regenerative American farms. No MSG, no gluten, no sugar. They've sold over 55 million and always backed by a 60 day money back guarantee. Paleo Valley makes 100% grass fed beef sticks because healthy living should be easy and accessible for all of us. Right now you can get 15% off these delicious things. Your first order@paleovalley.com if you use the code NextUp. So again go to paleovalley.com use the code NextUp and get your discount and your delicious beef sticks. Let's make America healthy again everybody. One real food choice at a time. Okay, next up, we're going to talk more about all of this confusing stuff with two people who are great clarifiers. Dan Turnthine, former Democratic strategist, worked with a bunch of prominent Democrats. My co host on the morning meeting on two way and Ken, co host of the Group chat also on two way where he appears Thursdays at 4pm with my other guest today, Bachangar Sargon, author, journalist and again co host of the Group Chat on two way. Bhatia. How is the Group Chat different from other programs?
- [48:24]
Dan Turntine
The Group Chat is the most amazing show you could be watching right now. It has five of us truly representing the full spectrum of opinion relevant to the American people. But also we take your calls. You get to join the conversation and you get to talk to me, Dan, Emma, Jo Morris, Nina Turner and Robby Suave. So please join us 4pm every week on Thursday.
- [48:49]
Mark Halperin
Yeah, so watch it 4pm live on the two way platform if you want to get a question in or watch it live on YouTube or X and then of course on demand. And I couldn't be prouder to call you both my colleagues. And your show's off to a fast start. So congratulations to you both.
- [49:04]
Dan Turntine
Thanks.
- [49:05]
Mark Halperin
So I said you guys were great explainers and clarifiers. Dan, start with you. What's the connection between the Director of National Intelligence accusing Barack Obama of treason and the Epstein story? What's the connection between those two things?
- [49:22]
Botjungar Sargon
Well, I think there's skepticism because the Trump administration has had trouble trying to keep a lid on the Epstein story. It was only a few weeks ago Donald Trump was like, who's still talking about that? Why are you asking me about it? They've obviously tried to shut down any inquiry in the House. And all of a sudden, why does the DNI director choose this day to drop the bomb that she did? And then later that day, the Wall Street Journal comes out and says that, in fact, the DOJ had briefed Donald Trump earlier in the month, that his name is in the Epstein files. So it leads a lot of people to wonder that, you know, as Bill Clinton likes to say, if you see a turtle on a fence post, didn't get there by accident. Why? Why was the timing of the DOJ story for what a lot of people, at least on our side of the aisle, say there's nothing really in there. There's no. There's no allegation of a crime. So obviously, we'll probably get to that. But the timing certainly seems suspicious.
- [50:27]
Mark Halperin
I have to say, with peace, love and understanding and respect that the expression is, if you see a turtle on a fence post, it didn't get there by itself.
- [50:35]
Botjungar Sargon
Ah, yes.
- [50:36]
Mark Halperin
Rather than by accident, just that Arkansans like myself are rigorous with our word. Bacha, I'm so confused. I have people in my life who I trust who say that the Tulsi Gabbard thing is like, on direct orders from Donald Trump to get back in his good graces, she has invented this thing. And then I have people in my life who say, how could the media not be taking seriously Barack Obama leading a vast conspiracy to try to destroy Donald Trump? How's a simple citizen like myself supposed to choose between those two options?
- [51:10]
Dan Turntine
I think there's also a third option, which is that she truly does believe it, and there's no there there. And I think that's kind of where I've landed. I have immense respect for her. I don't think she would do anything as cynical, as push something out that she didn't believe was real and damning. I just don't think that at the end of the day, she had the goods. The whole thing, as far as I can tell, hangs on the idea that there was intelligence before Donald Trump took office in September, ish. That suggested that the tallies had not been altered by Russia and that what Russia had done was intervene. But it didn't state explicitly on behalf of whose campaign. But the report that it was replaced with supposedly in this dastardly fashion to undermine Trump says very similar things. It says that the tallies were not changed, which is something Barack Obama himself specifically came out and said. And it also says that primarily Russia used influence by undermining than it does mine name, Hillary Clinton. But the whole idea that there's a huge difference between the intelligence they suppress and the intelligence they supplied us with hangs on the idea that we wouldn't have known that the campaign that was hacked was Hillary Clinton's campaign, but we knew that. So, to me, and I say this as someone who thinks the Russiagate hoax is one of the greatest scandals in American history, I think probably many people are dead because Donald Trump was not able to, for example, enact a border policy that he would have liked to, which would have prevented people from dying of fentanyl, because he was mired in this nonsense, which was obviously the elites coming together to suppress this populist revolt represented by Donald Trump. It was horrible. But to me, the idea that this is a smoking gun actually undermines the crime of Russiagate. And calling President Obama a traitor in this way seems to me to be distracting from Donald Trump's actual accomplishments right now.
- [53:18]
Mark Halperin
Yeah. Dan, let me take two things, pick up on two things Baatshe said and take them to you. One is, I couldn't agree more with what Batya said. And people except, you know, deniers who have tds have to understand the frustration that President Trump and those who worked in his first term feel. And his supporters, they feel that his ability to do his job and accomplish things was hampered by a hoax. It's an incredible story that, you know, rather than read about it in the New York Times and Washington Post, you can read about their winning Pulitzer Prizes for pretending it was not a hoax. It's kind of incredible. You can understand the frustration. But at the same time, I remember one moment early in my career when I covered the Clinton White House. Tom Friedman back then was a reporter, not a columnist in the New York Times. And he was listening to a briefing one day the Clinton folks were doing that was just filled with poppycock. And he said, where I come from in Minnesota, we call that a lie. And had quite an impression on me. I thought about that. You know, sometimes as a reporter you got to call it out to. To accuse a former president of engaging in a conspiracy and committing treason. Where I come from, you don't do that without the goods. You don't do that without chapter and verse. And frankly, you don't do it in public. You do a criminal referral to the Justice Department. So it's hard for me to understand what Tulsi Gabbard is doing as something on the up and up, Dan.
- [54:47]
Botjungar Sargon
I mean, that makes two of us. I don't understand it. I mean, I keep going back to Russia interfered in the election. There's no dispute. Russia interfered to harm Hillary Clinton. There is no dispute about that. The Russians didn't think Donald Trump would win. So where the administration seems to be trying to split the differences. Well, the allegation in the media was the Russians attempted to help Donald Trump. Okay, true, they were not explicitly trying to help Donald Trump, but they were trying to hurt Hillary Clinton. And in doing so, they did end up assisting Donald Trump, who ended up winning a very close election. I think, look, I understand the frustration of Trump. I think part of this is he always likes to take all credit for victory. Right. It is entirely him. I mean, other than the one time he kind of acknowledged Susie Wiles as being a great campaign manager, he historically has made it all about him. And I think it really bothers him that he won a close election and he knows that he got an assistant. And I think it was appropriate to investigate whether there was something more there. I respect Bob Mueller's report, but it's not a hoax that Russia intervened in the election, and it's not a hoax that the Trump campaign talked to the Russians. The question was whether there was collusion. And that was not proved. And I respect it, but I get it. I get Trump's frustration.
- [56:20]
Dan Turntine
Dan, I disagree with you. I think, because I think it has not been proven that what Russia did actually impacted the election. And what I mean by that is not that they didn't hack Hillary Clinton, they hacked her. It's not that they didn't buy ads targeted at black people to suppress the vote. They did do that. But to prove that they actually had an impact on the election, you have to actually come up with hundreds of thousands.
- [56:44]
Mark Halperin
Yeah, but you don't have to. I don't think you have to prove it. I think it's the opposite of what they say about chicken soup. Right. It didn't help her. You can't quantify how much it hurt.
- [56:53]
Dan Turntine
Her idea that an American would like. You have to. You have to come up with people, enough people in enough swing states who said, yeah, I wouldn't gone. But I saw that.
- [57:02]
Mark Halperin
I don't think you do. I don't think you. Doctor, with respect. Here's what, here's, here's all you have to do. Go look at every news cycle around the release of the DNC hacked emails. Go look at how much they hijacked individual news cycles for. There's a correlation between losing news cycles and doing worse than a campaign. So I just, I reject the premise. With respect. They have to prove it.
- [57:28]
Dan Turntine
You're saying that she was. How.
- [57:32]
Mark Halperin
Of course, of course. But she almost, you know what? She almost won too. But let me just say you're setting a standard for saying, did something impact the campaign? They have to find individual voters in vast numbers who say, yeah, that impacted me. I just don't think that's the standard we normally apply.
- [57:51]
Dan Turntine
Of course it is. Where's the evidence that it happened? You're saying you don't need evidence to prove something happened. That's a ridiculous assertion.
- [57:58]
Mark Halperin
No, I have evidence for you. I know that losing news cycles decreases your chances of winning. And I know the hacked emails caused her to lose many news cycles. I can't quantify how much it hurt her. Well, botched. Did. Did. Did inflation hurt Joe Biden's and Kamala Harris's chances?
- [58:19]
Dan Turntine
We literally have people saying I turned out to vote because of inflation. You don't have a single person who said, I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton because I read justice emails.
- [58:29]
Mark Halperin
Of course we do.
- [58:31]
Botjungar Sargon
I disagree about who literally said I.
- [58:33]
Dan Turntine
Didn'T show up to vote because of the hacking.
- [58:36]
Mark Halperin
No, I have, I have. I have a more negative feeling about Hillary Clinton because of what I read about.
- [58:42]
Dan Turntine
Yeah, you guys don't understand how loathed she was. Like, what, Trump?
- [58:47]
Mark Halperin
But Bacha. Just because she had other problem. Just because she had other problems as a candidate doesn't mean this didn't impact the race. She almost won Baja. She almost won.
- [58:58]
Dan Turntine
What we would need is information to prove which of us is correct. Right. But you're saying you don't even need that information. And I.
- [59:05]
Mark Halperin
No, I have. No, I'm saying I have it. I'm saying I have information, Dan.
- [59:10]
Botjungar Sargon
Well, and I think other part of this Bhatia is. And I mean, it's like, you know, this is ripping scar tissue off here. My memory. One of the reasons Hillary Clinton lost was she underperformed with African Americans and Bernie Sanders voters in three or four states. Right. The blue wall states Turnout was not what they had hoped in Philadelphia, in Milwaukee and in Detroit. And one of the things that we know from two ways is the number of people who have come on who say, I am a Bernie Sanders or I was a Bernie Sanders voter. I will never forgive how the DNC and the Clinton campaign conspired to prevent Bernie Sanders from getting the nomination in 16. One of the reasons those voters know so much about what was going on behind the curtain were the leaked emails.
- [60:02]
Dan Turntine
Okay, so there is that a true thing that happened. A true thing. Right. Which is the way that Bernie Sanders was treated by the Democratic establishment, that it would have better had these facts been hidden from view.
- [60:17]
Mark Halperin
No, we're not saying, we're not saying better. We're saying the opposite. At least I am. We're saying the reason we know them is because of Russia's interference in the election. You've said two things. You've said, one, Hillary was a bad candidate. True, but it doesn't mean she would have lost. And two, you're saying there's no evidence that the leak, that Russia's efforts on leaked emails or Facebook ads hurt Hillary. And what Dan and I are saying.
- [60:42]
Dan Turntine
Is let's put out a call to the two way community of people who are 1000% sure that if they didn't read those leaked emails.
- [60:52]
Mark Halperin
But Baja doesn't have to. It doesn't. It doesn't have to be a thousand. It doesn't have to be a thousand. There are people who voted for Kamala Harris who didn't like inflation because they factored in other things. It's not all or nothing. It's not all or nothing. This clearly was negative for Hillary Clinton. Did it cost her the election, given how close it was? It may well have. In any event.
- [61:15]
Dan Turntine
Anyway.
- [61:16]
Mark Halperin
In any event. All right, okay. We're talking to my two way colleagues, Bhatjangar, Sargon, Dan turned Hein about pretty much everything. So let's talk about this. Got the Epstein story moving along. Clearly there are developments coming that are going to be in the news. There's, there's what's going to happen with Maxwell, there's what's going to happen with the congressional efforts to do a discharge petition. There's the efforts to, by the administration to decline to get the courts to agree to put out grand jury stuff. And then there's tons of investigative reporting going on. Now, I assure you, to try to flesh out the relationship between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. That story will continue. I'm interested in this thing where the head of national intelligence says Barack Obama committed treason. The Justice Department announces a strike force. Bacha, do you anticipate future developments in that story, or is it going to die off? Because it isn't. It is. There's no there there.
- [62:24]
Dan Turntine
I mean, I really hope it dies off, but, like, Pam Bondi's not in a great place, I think, with the administration. And so that's kind of worrying. Right. Like, I just. I feel my husband voted for Donald Trump after the Mar a Lago raid because he was so disgusted. Weaponization of the Justice Department. He said, I cannot allow this. He's never voted in his life. And he said, I just can't stand idlebi. I have to feel like I've done something just to oppose the weaponization of the Justice Department. And I just feel like I'm watching this train wreck happen where, like, the side that had the moral high ground on that is just like, utterly squandering it for nothing.
- [63:06]
Mark Halperin
Amazing. Dan, do you anticipate, and if you do, what would they be? What could keep the accusations of Director Gabbard in the news? Or is it dead?
- [63:18]
Botjungar Sargon
I think what will happen is they will selectively leak an email or something. It won't be the full story. It'll be taken out of context. But I think every time they need to fire up the base, every time they wanna potentially change a news cycle, I would anticipate that they're gonna try to put something out into the ether on this story. Yeah. On the Obama BNI allegation. Is that what you're asking about?
- [63:49]
Mark Halperin
That?
- [63:50]
Botjungar Sargon
Are you asking about Epstein? Yeah. Yeah, I think they will keep that story in the news because it is the. It is the purest form of red meat to throw to the base. And the fact that it's based off of a report that's been sitting out there for eight years is in and of itself kind of crazy. But I have no doubt where there's a will, there's a way.
- [64:11]
Mark Halperin
Okay, let's leave Epstein and the Gabbard thing aside for a moment. What else is happening now that you think should be getting more attention than it is? That something going on with either Congress or the president or the Democratic Party that you think is being kind of wrongly overshadowed by those two hulking stories at the moment, Dan.
- [64:34]
Botjungar Sargon
So I'll give you two stories, one for each party. I think for the Republicans, the big under the radar story is the looming showdown on immigration because you have Brooke Rollins and Donald Trump recognizing that you can't deport all 16 million people here. That are here illegally. Some of whom work in agriculture, construction, hospitality industries. That Trump understands that he knows that rely on these people who are in the community and have been a part of the workforce for years. On the other side is Steve Bannon and a lot of Stephen Miller, a lot of true believers who it's unfathomable that you're going to start to give some sort of plan not for citizenship, but to stay here and work and be part of the community. I think that showdown is coming because they can't coexist in the long run on our side of the aisle. I think the looming problem for Chuck Schumer with the budget, that's going to come in the fall. Schumer got crushed when he agreed to the budget last March, letting it go through. Democrats did to get 60 votes. He has no power to stop it. I think Democrats would get blamed for a shutdown if Trump, Johnson and Thune are all aligned and probably John Fetterman and a few Democrats are like, we're not gonna die on this Hill. And what does Schumer do? I think it's gonna tear the party apart again. The base is gonna scream. Schumer is going to just basically let it go through. Does Jeffries stand by him? There's the AOC factor and her influence on Schumer, her influence on Jeffries, who wants to be speaker and needs the base in his corner. We have what's going on here in New York City. I think both parties have some stuff under the radar that's on the horizon.
- [66:25]
Mark Halperin
That was a mighty fine answer. Boccia. Top that.
- [66:28]
Dan Turntine
I will top that. Because of course Dan went for something negative on the Republican side.
- [66:35]
Mark Halperin
That's his job. He's paid to be negative.
- [66:38]
Dan Turntine
The truth is, the reason I'm so angry about the DNI report is because it is obfuscating an absolutely earth shattering victory of the President's, which for some reason he doesn't want to talk about, which is this trade deal with Japan. There are going to be families in five generations that are middle class and homeowners because of this trade deal that this President just signed. Giving us.
- [67:04]
Mark Halperin
Explain how.
- [67:05]
Dan Turntine
Well, because what he's done is for the first time we now have access for our cars in the Japanese market. We're gonna be collecting 15% tariffs on them like they just folded. Like, do you know how many billions of dollars we're gonna be raising off of that? And that's the deal they agreed to. They got nothing and we got everything. He is the only person on planet Earth who could have pulled that off and why? He would have spent a second of his life talking about anything but this enormous victory. It does everything he said he wanted to do, it is everything that he promised that no one else could have done. I mean, the impact this is gonna have on working class Americans is enormous. It is a windfall. And yet no one is talking about it because, because he's out there calling Obama trade every day. And it is enraging to me that an accomplishment of this scale is just gonna disappear into the ether. And from now on we're always gonna talk about it like it was the easiest thing in the world to pull off. Like, it's obvious we should be getting a 15% tariff off of Japan. It's so infuriating.
- [68:12]
Mark Halperin
Yeah, but I agree with you with the caveat that Dan and I have discussed on the morning meeting, that it's gotta be implemented. Right. But on, on, on the, on the first glance on the deal, you're absolutely right. It's an extraordinary deal and previous presidents wouldn't even dream to try for it. One of the things I've liked to do over the last four years or so is ask Democrats, do you give, how much credit do you give Donald Trump for the Abraham Accords? And it usually their initial answer is Humida hum and a ham and a. And then they have to sort of grudgingly admit, yeah, that was pretty good. Like if, if, if Barack Obama or Joe Biden had done that, we'd be celebrating it. I'll be curious to see if this Japan deal is implemented. Dan, will Democrats say what Bacha just said, which is, yeah, he moved the Overton window on this. He got a trade deal with Japan that no previous president, all of them frustrated by Japanese tariff and non tariff barriers, would have even thought to go for, let alone execute and get. Will Democrats anytime soon or ever acknowledge that they should?
- [69:17]
Botjungar Sargon
No, look, I think they won't sit there and say, bravo Donald Trump, but I think what they will say is somewhat what Bache just said. This is a home run for America. If this deal ends up, as you say, Mark, being implemented. If the Japanese agree to it. We have not seen the fine print. I do want to just kind of put out there, the Japanese have not said that Trump is lying or we don't have a deal, as some other countries have said after Truth Social Post. But if that's right, I mean, to Bhatia's point, I mean, I would love to be going into Michigan or talk to the auto industry after this deal. If I were Donald Trump. So I think what would be interesting is in 2028 or Democrats running for president, you're not going to sit there and say, boy, we should really do more free trade deals per se. You're going to say, I will continue this. Maybe try to identify a country or two that you wanna try to be the tip of the spear for. But Trump, if this goes through and if Europe folds in a similar fashion as is being reported may happen, Trump will deserve tremendous credit. Full stop.
- [70:20]
Mark Halperin
Okay. All right, quick rapid round.
- [70:23]
Dan Turntine
Wait. I just need to say, Mark, cuz once you said, I don't know if he was running, but follow, you should have asked Dan a follow question. You didn't ask him if Trump deserves the credit. You asked him if Trump will get the credit.
- [70:34]
Mark Halperin
Yeah, it's true. Dan would have dodged it. So I didn't bother to ask. All right, rapid round. To close, your answers have to be a Bush administration official. Okay, A Bush administration official. Who would you most like? W. Or Sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry I said Bush. Trump. A Trump administration official. Who would you most.
- [70:53]
Dan Turntine
In my tender years, I was not even alive.
- [70:57]
Mark Halperin
Yes, Trump. Who would you most like to spend a weekend in Paris with? Bacha.
- [71:02]
Dan Turntine
Oh, Trump, obviously.
- [71:03]
Mark Halperin
All right, it can't be Trump. Can't be Trump or Vance. Can't be Trump or Vance. I should have stipulated that. Who would you most like to spend a weekend in Paris with?
- [71:11]
Dan Turntine
Oh, can't be Trump or Vance in Paris. I would say Rick Rennell.
- [71:15]
Mark Halperin
Dan.
- [71:17]
Botjungar Sargon
Howard Lutnick. Because he's just a character.
- [71:20]
Mark Halperin
Who would. Who would you most like to see fired? Bacha. Oh.
- [71:26]
Dan Turntine
I wouldn't have a problem with them letting Pam Bondi go at this point.
- [71:30]
Mark Halperin
Dan.
- [71:30]
Botjungar Sargon
Pete Hagseth, because he's in over his head.
- [71:33]
Mark Halperin
Who would you most like to interview? Batya?
- [71:37]
Dan Turntine
Rubio.
- [71:38]
Botjungar Sargon
Oh, you took it, Dan. I was gonna say Rubio if I can't do Rubio. Susie Wiles.
- [71:45]
Mark Halperin
Who would you most like to shoot with Truth serum in interview? Bacha Wiles. Susie Wiles. Dan Scott Bassett. Okay. And who would you most like to start a new business with? Batya.
- [72:00]
Dan Turntine
Ooh, new business. That's a really good one. I want to say, like Monica Crowley.
- [72:09]
Mark Halperin
Dan.
- [72:10]
Botjungar Sargon
David Sachs. He's got a pretty good batting average in some industries of the future.
- [72:15]
Mark Halperin
Excellent. All right, we gotta go. Very grateful. Dan and Bacha again. You see him every Thursday, 4pm Eastern time on two ways, the group chat and Dan and I every weekday morning at 9:00am Eastern Time. On the morning meeting. Grateful to you both. Thank you for being here. Hope to see you soon. All right, that's it for today. We'll be back Tuesday with another brand new episode of NextUp. Make sure you subscribe and download NextUp wherever you get your podcasts or watch us on YouTube so you always know what's coming next up.