← Surrounded
Loading summary
Transcript123 lines
- [00:00]
A
Trump is one of the few presidents, in my opinion, that is so unshakable when it comes to just not caring
- [00:08]
B
if you're on the left and you're happy right now that Bonnie's gone, like, oh, maybe now we're gonna get some motion on the Epstein files. You're out of your mind. Marvel Television's Wonder man, an eight episode series now streaming on Disney. A superhero remake. Not exactly what we'd expect from an Oscar winning director Simon Williams audition for Wonder Man. I'm gonna need you to sign this.
- [00:30]
C
Assuming you don't have superpowers.
- [00:34]
A
I'll never work again if anyone found out. Monolips are sealed.
- [00:39]
B
Marvel Television's Wonder man, all eight episodes now streaming only on Disney. We all wanna know what makes people tick.
- [00:46]
A
How will they make decisions, handle feedback
- [00:49]
B
and work as a team? The predictive index behavioral assessment reveals how employees actually think work and, and thrive. Like how Marcus fits in a role with structure. And Margo's strength is collaborating with others because when we understand each other, work just works.
- [01:07]
C
Take the behavioral assessment today@try.preictive index.com all right, I am here with Marian and Andrew. Welcome to the Surrounded follow up.
- [01:20]
A
Hi.
- [01:21]
B
Hey. Thanks for having me.
- [01:24]
C
I would love to hear from each of you just kind of briefly, what was it like going into the Surrounded episode with Ro Khanna and did it meet your expectations? Did he surprise you, disappoint you? Marian, why don't you start us off?
- [01:42]
A
Yeah, I don't know that the audience won't know this, but we did not know who it was gonna be until the moment that you introduce the person. Right. So I think, I think I leaked
- [01:54]
C
it a few minutes before.
- [01:56]
A
Right. I think we all had like a moment of like, okay, calibrate your brain. Like what, you know, questions. Did you prepare in case this was who it was going to be? You know, now we know it's someone that actually was involved in writing the bill. So now it's a whole different mindset of, you know, what do I need to focus on? So that was kind of fun. Fun just having that like, on your toes moment. And for me, you know, politicians themselves, it's when you're debating a politician or you think about just the realities of what politicians are trained to do. They're very good debaters, right? Like this is, this is part of their training. So I enjoy debating him because he is well versed in what he is talking about and he's a genuine, you know, competitor, if you will, in the debate space. So it was Very fun. It was better than, you know, debating someone who might be an expert in something but is not an expert in debating.
- [02:56]
C
Well, you, you seemed fearless. You, you did not seem concerned with his status and I, I appreciated that. Andrew, how about you?
- [03:07]
B
Yeah, I, I largely feel the same way. I will say, like, you know, when we're, when we're going into these surrounded videos, you know, if you're one of the 20 in the, in the circle, kind of like all, you know, going in is like the, the topic, of course you'd have to know the topic, but. And then also like the very, very, very broad political alignment of the person. And so, you know, I can only speak for myself, but when I, you know, when I was going into the video, I thought, okay, I know it's going to be someone on the left and it's about the Epstein Files. We're going to be talking a lot about the Epstein Files Transparency Act. And I just kind of thought to myself, like, who would, out of, you know, all the left leaning politicians I know who would have the most motivation to come talk about the Epstein Files Transparency Act? Maybe Rok Otto would have that kind of, you know, motivation. So I had like 50 confidence that that's who it would be. And then, that being said, I've always had, ever since Epstein Files Transparency act was passed, or, you know, since that conversation got started with his initial discharge petition that he and Massey were pushing for, I always had like a very specific question and, you know, that ended up being what I talked to him about and a very specific question of like, why does it feel like this bill is so toothless? And so, yeah, you know, speaking for myself, I came into the episode specifically, fingers crossed that it would be Rokana. You know, I was like, you know, you don't know for sure, but I was like, please, Rokana. Please Rokana. Because I just wanted to ask him about that specific thing, like, why'd you write a bill that has no teeth, man? And, you know, I got lucky. I saw him walk out. Well, you, you said, you kind of said you did leak it like five minutes before we were setting up. You're like, well, guys, when Roe gets here, we're gonna. And I was like, oh, I always forget it's a secret.
- [04:34]
C
I always forget it's a secret.
- [04:35]
B
Yeah, that didn't have any effect. It didn't have any effect on anything because it was like he was just about to walk in when you said that. But when you said it, I was like, John.
- [04:43]
C
Yeah, that was Funny.
- [04:44]
B
Yeah. So, you know, for me, I was like, very fingers crossed that that's who it be. And so when it. When I, you know, when he did walk it or I guess when you leaked it, but you know, when. When he came in, I was like, yes, you know, I get to. You get to talk to him about this one thing I want to talk to him about.
- [04:56]
C
Yeah, well, great. I. It's interesting to have both of you on because. And, well, I really want to get to Andrew, what you wanted to bring up with him. And then, Marianne, obviously what you debated with him. It's interesting because you both have. You have a similar concern that the bill is kind of. And just the Epstein sort of moment that has been bubbling in politics this year is kind of political theater. But, Andrew, your concern is the inverse. It's political theater that doesn't intend to actually get results or hold this administration accountable. Like you said, toothless. But then, Marianne, you have a different concern, which is that this is kind of a witch hunt. This is a little bit of McCarthy vibes where we're just trying to kind of drag as many people through the mud as we can to throw dirt on this administration. So it's interesting you guys both kind of are coming at that from different angles. But there's a shared thread. So, Andrew, we'll start with a clip from you, and then I do want to hear kind of what you both are thinking. So this is Andrew and Ro, and I'm going to play this for you guys. So one second.
- [06:08]
B
You mentioned that if you could do it again, you would put some sort of private cause of action into the bill. So, you know, the DOJ could be sued to try to get the files released in that manner. Why didn't you? Would be the question.
- [06:19]
D
So, first of all, there is legal standing, right? We could have obstruction of justice brought against them. That is a cause of action. The judge Engelmar in the Southern District of New York has invited the survivors to sue because they aren't complying with the Epstein Transparency Act. But it was a herculean task to get this through. Massie and I defied the odds. There have only been five discharge petitions ever passed in the history of recent Congress. We had to go against the speaker. We had to go against Donald Trump. We had to go against the senators. We had to go against people initially in our own parties. And so what we were trying to do is pass something that could get majority support. And if we had made it even tougher, it would have been hard to get the Votes? We did. Now, I don't think Donald Trump still knows that he signed a Democrats bill. He thinks maybe it's Massey's bill. But, you know, it was a very, very hard thing. If we had more time and if we were able to get a broader coalition, we could do it. And some people are talking about, can we do a second act of the Epstein Transparency Act? But it was the best we could get through in Congress at the time.
- [07:27]
B
So is that to say that you, yourself and Thomas Massie considered putting a private cause of action into the bill and you chose not to for the sake of having a better chance of getting more votes?
- [07:35]
D
We did. We looked at other enforcement mechanisms and, you know, there was also a rush to do it. So if we started out with saying, oh, we're going to sue them and we're going to sue the administration, it would be very hard for me to get some of the Republicans on board. Sure.
- [07:48]
C
Reliving that moment a little bit, Andrew, what comes to mind? Were you satisfied with his response?
- [07:56]
B
I mean, I think we get like a little bit deeper into it. You know, as I'm talking to him in that section and like, I, by the end I was like 50 satisfied. Actually, I've thought about this more since then. I think, like right after, you know, the conversation was over, right after we finished filming, at the time, I was like, you know what? I guess I'm okay with that. He gave an okay answer. And then I think kind of as time went on, thinking back on the moment, like the drive home, you know, as I'm like, I had like a three hour drive home after, and I'm just sitting there in the car, I'm like, mm, I don't think I am okay with that answer because there was a lot. He did a lot of politician speak right there.
- [08:27]
C
He so slick. He's so slick.
- [08:29]
B
Yeah, he very rarely. And, you know, it's what Marianne brought up earlier that, like, you know, he's a politician, he's a good debater. You know, he has to be. I like halfway agree with that. I think he's a decent debater for a politician. But the problem with a lot of politicians is that there are just certain things they can't say or they're not willing to say because, you know, it might hurt their electoral chances or it might hurt their ability to work with other people, you know, in Congress, you know, if they had said something, something. If he had said something in that moment, you notice he says like, you know, Massey and I did initially want to Put some sort of teeth in this bill. A cause of action or criminal, you know, a criminal punishment or something. Like, we wanted something, and we thought that we couldn't get the votes to get it passed. Like, I think later he goes on to say something along the lines of, that actually is what occurred in real life. That is how it played out. They originally had some sort of punishment, and they could, you know, with the punishment in the bill, they couldn't get the votes to get the bill passed. And so, like, my immediate. Like, what I would want to know is, like, okay, well, then I feel like rather than, you know, rather than trying to, like, play defense for those people as to why there's no punishment in this bill, you should just be like, hey, you're right. This bill is toothless. But it's, you know, you know, one of the people that signed the discharge position, I think, you know, Marjorie Taylor Greene had signed the petition. Maybe it was her right. So you just throw it and just be like, you know, hey, if you're mad that there's no teeth in this bill, Marjorie did it her fault. You know, so the politician speak kind of gets old. And I, you know, I thought about that a lot, you know, you know, later on, I was okay with his answer at first, but I was like, he really didn't answer my question very well, did he? Huh? Like, he, like, he really kind of slithered around. It didn't. Didn't actually give a direct answer. But, well, you know, politicians, right?
- [09:59]
C
I mean, he. Yeah, I. I can see that posturing, that maneuvering. I mean, I think he's. He's a gifted speaker. He's really good at meeting the person that he's speaking to, where they're at. I guess something I'm curious about so we can get a little bit deeper into your point of view, Andrew, before throwing it over to Marion. Is why. Why is that so important to you? And what do you think? Like, do you think it would have been possible to get a cause of action in this bill with Republican support? Because I think, you know, his main argument, which I do think is somewhat valid, is, look, we barely got this through to begin with because we don't. Republicans don't want people to go after Trump, so.
- [10:41]
B
Right.
- [10:43]
C
You know, do you. Do you feel like it wasn't worthwhile unless you could get that? Why. Why was that so important to you?
- [10:49]
B
No, it's actually, it's my. My issue with the, you know, this whole line of, you know, with this whole, like, dialogue tree here is that I feel like there's a lack of honesty that's going on. Like, I actually, I don't necessarily have any issues with the results. He probably is correct. He's probably just right that if there was, you know, say within the build, he had put some sort of like obstruction charge, you know, within the bill that had like lesser, lesser elements than the actual obstruction charge. We can get into that later because that was his excuse. Like, well, we'll just charge him with obstruction down the line maybe. I don't think that would work. And I thought it was a cop out for him. I think it's a cop out for him to try to say that. But, you know, like, he, he might just be correct that if there was something like that in the build, that there's no way it would have passed. He might be right. But then say that. So, you know, you know, part, my, part of my motivation for wanting to talk to him specifically about this is that I saw him. He did an interview with. I don't remember exactly which video is it is because he's done like dozens. But he, I remember seeing him do an interview with Brian Tyler Cohen and Brian asked him that, the same question I asked him, like, hey, why does it feel like this bill's kind of toothless? There's no cause of, you know, civil cause of action. There's no criminal punishment for non compliance. It basically seems like, you know, as the bill's written, the DOJ can just violate this law and there will be no consequences for doing so. And at the time his answer was, oh, that wasn't our focus. You know, like, you know, punishing non compliance wasn't really top of mind for us. We kind of just overlooked it and we just wanted to get the bill passed. And Ro Khanna is a Yale educated lawyer. Okay. That answer is B, there's no way that if you graduated from Yale Law, I know you understand our legal framework such that you know full well that if you put no teeth in this bill whatsoever and there's no outside source, again, he, he tries to go to, we'll charge them with obstruction. I can explain later why that's not happening. There's just no shot of that. But so when he says that to Brian, right, He's a, you know, we weren't really thinking about it. I'm like, no shot. You didn't think about it. There's no way. There's no chance you didn't think about it. What happened or what I think happened is you did think about it in an Outside, something else changed your mind. And so, you know, I wanted to push him on that because he. I felt like he had given a lying answer. But just circle back to originally what you asked. It's just an honesty thing for me. Again, you know, whether he's correct or not, that it wouldn't have got past. Sure, maybe. But just tell the truth. Just say that. Just say, like, you know, when Brian asked you that original question a couple months ago in that video, say what you said to me. And I would prefer that you actually name drop the person that, you know, that, you know, pushed him into not having a punishment in the bill. But again, we go back to, he's a politician. Can he really. Can he. Can he put that person on blast like that? Maybe he can't, but, yeah, that'd be my preference.
- [13:20]
C
Yeah. Marion, you've been patiently sitting on the side.
- [13:23]
B
What.
- [13:24]
C
What's on your mind?
- [13:26]
A
You know, I'm just. Andrew's 100% right. The frustration I have, or just the point that's making me laugh, is one of Ro's claims was that Pam was not in compliance with the bill. So it's like, if you were going to be this frustrated, if they were not in full compliance, you should have written a better bill. Right? Like, you should have written a bill that would have demanded and held them accountable for. For the entirety of what you're looking for, which is the full release of the files, et cetera. So he wrote a bill that was very lackadaisical and then comes in to debate all of us about the idea that Pam is not holding up her end of the bargain in a very crappy bill or a very basic bill. And as Andrew said, he's a politician and a lawyer, so he knows all of the workarounds that were already available to the right or, you know, to the doj. When he wrote this bill, as he's writing it in his mind, he absolutely knows, okay, well, this is a point where they might be able to, you know, shimmy out of being held accountable or get away with this, get away with that. And yet he still wrote it and still presented it. So to me, when I'm receiving all of this, I'm just thinking, again, like you said at the beginning, it's more of a witch hunt in my idea. I really think that it was just like, you know what? All we need is to open up some form of huge conversation about the files, get people arguing, get people freaking out, make sure people know that Trump is named in it, make sure people know that our opposition is named in it, and that's all we really care about. We don't actually care about the victims themselves. That's what I think.
- [15:10]
C
Yeah. A question I have for you, though, is because, so we're kind of saying, okay, this bill was sort of toothless. This seems a little bit like political theater. It's kind of meant to drag down the administration to be something that they kind of can't quite shake off. But then why was there bipartisan support? You know, like, what do you think Massie has? Like, why was Massie so enthusiastically supporting it? I think that's kind of what I'm trying to understand is this was sort of unusual in that it was bipartisan.
- [15:45]
A
Well, I think if we are honest about the fact that Trump is not actually implicated in these files, Right. Like, his name is all over them, but he's not implicated in any type of wrongdoing. And in digging into the files, you'll see that it's actually a bit more left leaning when we're talking about actual implication, who is actually implied as being, you know, a perpetrator of these crimes. Right. So I think it made sense for Massie to push for this one because again, it was a huge running point in Trump's campaign. So it has to look, or at least, you know, we have to receive it as the left and the right are involved and interested in getting this done, because that was something that Trump ran on. But in regards to whether or not I think they actually care, I don't. I don't think anyone actually cares. I think that. And again, I, like, Donald Trump voted for him happily. But I do know that he is a very good salesman, a very good politician, a very good businessman. So when we see something as hot button topic as the Epstein files, I wasn't surprised that, you know, he pushed it and then the left received it because they thought that they were going to get a win, and then they didn't. And so this is just them kind of eating, you know, almost the proverbial. You know, I don't want to curse, but the S Stew, if you will,
- [17:04]
C
you can swear it's okay, we'll bleep you.
- [17:07]
A
But, you know, they kind of like. Like they, they put their own foot in their own mouth. Right. Like they. They wanted something, they pushed for it very, very heavily. And now you. I was just thinking about this. You know, we're not seeing as much conversation about it every day. Right. In the news, a lot of people have dropped it. Now we're on to ice. Now we're on to, you know, whatever next. Now it's Iran. Like, as soon as they realized that they could not get Trump specifically, they stop caring. They just don't care as much, you know, But I think that to answer your point or your question, it had to come from the right as much as the left, because Trump did run on it, and Trump ran on it because he knew that he wasn't going to be implicated.
- [17:47]
C
So you don't have any concerns? I mean, I agree with you. Like, as far as I know, there's no, like, evidence that would actually suggest that Trump committed crimes. But are you concerned about any of, like, the deep association, like the drawing of the woman, of the naked woman, or the, you know, the. The beauty pageants that Trump. Trump allegedly was a part of that, you know, Epstein had involvement in? I mean, it is, like, deep, deep ties.
- [18:18]
A
Well, so. And this is where people are going to say, oh, you're, you know, you're making excuses for these bad guys. I am a realist who is aware of the realities of what Hollywood is like. The realities of what, you know, the. The hierarchy of our society is like, right? So I'm from New York. Like, I'm not old enough to remember when Page Six was a thing, but, you know, people have always been socialites in this city. And if you know people, if you know how that life is and that what that world is, I don't blame people for associations into something that has already been an existing framework of, you know, debauchery. Let's call it that. So I. I'll say it like this. This is what I say. You know, 2016, they freaked out. Oh, he says he grabs women by the P. Right? Like, that was the whole thing. It's like. No, what he actually said was, the women of today, they are so eager to be, you know, chosen, et cetera, that you could literally walk up and grab them by the vagina and they wouldn't, you know, they wouldn't stop you. So what he's doing in that instance is he's pointing out.
- [19:28]
C
Is it less upsetting to you?
- [19:30]
A
It is less upsetting to me because I don't blame someone for pointing out the reality of society. Right? Like, I'm not gonna blame anyone. I told a friend of mine who was so, you know, like, oh, I can't believe he said that. I was like, dude, I remember one time I asked you to crack my back, and you started giving me a back massage, and it's like, you didn't want you know you're not trying to be a creep, but you're a creep. Some people are creeps and they don't mean to be creeps. But there's a creepy nature in our overall, you know, male to female demograph traffic here. So saying that to say when I see that someone like Trump was a Page Sixer since he was in his early 20s, right? He has been a super rich billionaire, a super rich playboy since his early 20s. The fact that he is not implicated in something truly heinous is really a good thing because he grew up in the time or came up in the time where we have the R. Kelly's, you know, P. Diddy doing all of his horrible things, Bill Cosby doing his horrible things. So for it to just be, oh, he's a little bit of a creep, he's a little bit of a, you know, nasty old man or something, if you will. I'm like, I gotta give him at least a little bit of grace. Because for him to have been in that society, in that world, ingrained in it, and not be a full blown predator is actually, in my opinion, the best we could ask of somebody who lived in all of that. This episode is brought to you by Redfin. You're listening to a podcast, which means you're probably multitasking, maybe even scrolling home listings on Redfin, saving homes without expecting to get them. But Redfin isn't just built for endless browsing. It's built to help you find and own a home with agents who close twice as many deals. When you find the one, you've got a real shot at getting it. Get started@redfin.com, own the dream.
- [21:22]
B
You tell yourself no one wants your college era band tees, but on Depop, people are searching for exactly what you've got. You once paid a small fortune for them at merch stands. Now a teenager who calls them vintage will offer that same small fortune back. Sell them easily on Depop. Just snap a few photos and we'll take care of the rest. Who knew your questionable music taste would be a money making machine? Your style can make you cash. Start selling on Depop, where taste recognizes taste.
- [21:52]
A
Your next chapter in healthcare starts at Carrington College's School of Nursing in Portland. Join us for our open house on Tuesday, January 13th from 4 to 7pm you'll tour our campus, see live demos, meet instructors and learn about our associate degree in Nursing program that prepares prepares you to become a registered nurse. Take the first step toward your nursing career. Save your spot now at Carrington Edu events. For information on program outcomes, visit carrington. Edu sci.
- [22:23]
C
Andrew, do you, do you have the same grace for Trump? I'm not entirely sure where you stand.
- [22:32]
B
No, I don't have the same grace. Of course, I am on the other side of the aisle, after all, but I, I don't necessarily have the same, like, forgiveness that, that Marianne has, but I also don't have, like, the same, like, fervor that a lot of people on the left have for the Epstein files issue. Like I said, this whole, this whole, the whole Epstein files thing for me is just about honesty and then honesty on one hand on, like, this. That's more my, like, position on the, like, the bill and the release of the files. Like, I just want everyone to be honest about the situation we're facing. Right? That's, that's all I want on that side. And then on the actual, like, you know, what did people actually do? My main issue is just getting justice if crimes were committed. And I don't actually think that this whole Epstein file saga, the way it's, you know, the way we've gone about it is, is, like, very conducive to actually getting justice for, you know, any crimes that were committed. Like, I could pose you a hypothetical. Let's say, you know, we, we saw in the, you know, files, in the release of files, there was an FBI witness interview form that, that was released that had, you know, it was a, it was a woman or a girl accusing Trump of sexually assaulting her. Now, let's say that, that one, that, that witness interview form, let's say the FBI investigated. Well, I mean, they would have. They definitely did. But, you know, that witness statement gets made, the FBI investigates and they find out it's not credible. You know, this girl lied. She, you know, Trump was, you know, at the time she said this happened, Trump was on the other side of the country. She was over here. Not credible right. Now, let's say there's a second one in there. Same, you know, same situation, FBI witness interview and another girl says that Trump sexually assaulted her. And it turns out, you know, the FBI investigates and it turns out that that is credible. And then let's say that, you know, they do a deeper investigation, they find a mountain of evidence, again, all hypothetical here, but they find a mountain of evidence that it actually did happen. And so, you know, 2029 comes around, Trump's no longer in office, and the FBI goes, you know what? We've got mountains of evidence that this is real, that he did sexually assault this woman we want to prosecute. Well, now, what you've done by. By just dumping all the files. What you've done is you've created an argument for. For Trump and his legal team to say, well, how am I supposed to get a fair trial now? When you've put out all of this, you know, you've put on all of this, you know, incriminating stuff against me in the files, releases that it's like 90% untrue. I can never get a fair trial now. And, you know, that. That might be a colorable argument where, you know, some courts go, yeah, he probably can't get a fair trial because of this, so we're, you know, we're not gonna be able to move forward with this. So I actually don't think that the way we've gone about, like, my main issue is honesty on the side of the people trying to get the files released and then justice for any crimes that really were committed. And I don't think that. I don't think I'm getting either one of those right now. You know, by the way, we've got all about this. I feel like I'm being lied to on all sides, from all angles about, like, why, why we're doing this, you know, why this decision was made, why do it this way, why do it that way? And then, you know, the actual actions themselves aren't really conducive to getting justice for any crimes, so. Or at least, you know, maybe they are in some way. You might be able to make some argument for why. Like, you know, maybe the FBI was never going to go after this or that or the DOJ was never going to go after this or that. But now that it's in the public and everybody's real upset about it, maybe now that's pressure to do so and they'll try. But, you know, for every one of those arguments you can make, I can make another in the opposite direction, like I just did, Right? Or it was like, well, now you're just giving him another legal argument to get everything dismissed. And so I just feel like I'm just getting screwed at all sides. It feels like there's also just the
- [25:43]
A
fact that once you release the files, and that is a huge bundle of evidence, now you have people that could easily go and destroy the incriminating evidence, you know, on their end. Right. So I just. I find it very strange that in an active case, it made sense to release one of the biggest packages of evidence that we have. It was just very, very strange.
- [26:06]
B
Oh, And I do want to cut in just to say, because this is initially, I think, what you were trying to get at when you turned to me and asked the question on whether I give as much grace to Trump as she does, the answer's still no, I don't. But I will say, and I guess I want to have it on record, like, I have seen nothing that would indicate, you know, that gives me, like, at least, like, probable cause in my head where I'm like, you know, there's a decent chance he did commit these crimes. I haven't seen that yet. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I don't think it's been released. You know, people will point to, like, you know, people will point to the, you know, the FBI witness interview form that was released, but the FBI said they investigated that, and, you know, they said they investigated that and they found no credible evidence to move forward any further than that. And, you know, the way I look at it, I trust, you know, no, not anymore. You know, under the Trump. Under the Trump regime, I don't. But I trust our institution. So if the FBI is going to tell me this interview, you know, this. This witness came in, we did this interview, we investigated her claims, we found nothing. If they're going to tell me that, I believe them. And so for me, that's not evidence. So when, you know, I've seen nothing that says Trump did any criminal behavior.
- [27:10]
C
Yeah, let's refresh our memory a little bit. I mean, what I hear from both of you is like, process. There's a process we have for this, and that is kind of bigger than. Than the headlines and kind of the. The vibes, but there's a lot of vibes in the Epstein stuff.
- [27:25]
B
So many vibes.
- [27:26]
C
Okay, I'm going to. I'm going to share a clip. Marianne, this is the first time you sat down with, with Roe.
- [27:33]
D
You're absolutely right. I mean, there shouldn't be a witch hunt. And there are a lot of people in those files who are totally innocent, who may be mentioned because they were in a news story or maybe mentioned because someone was talking about them in an email. And I do not want this to be in any way like a McCarthy hunt, that just because you're in the Epstein files, you're guilty. On the other hand, and you would probably acknowledge this, there are a lot of rich and powerful people in those files who showed up on Epstein's island who raped or abused these girls, who had girls trafficked to them, and they thought they were above the law. And I'm concerned, why are those people not being investigated and prosecuted? So we need to be going after the Epstein class. We don't need to go after every single person. And by the way, Massie and I never made this about Trump. Now, there is an allegation about one person, one woman who claims that she was abused or raped by President Trump when she was 13. I don't know if that's true or not. What I do believe is that the files in that case should come out.
- [28:32]
A
And I hear what you're saying. The question I would ask you is how much proof should we ask for? Right. What is the burden of proof on the people that are seeking justice to demand that these names be released? Because the moment that a name is in those files, these people have to deal with that in their real lives. Right? We're talking about people walking around with their children that now have to deal with people attacking them online, attacking them in public, saying that they're pedophiles. These people might have just known Epstein. They might have just sold him a house for all you know. Right.
- [29:03]
C
So, Marianne, that was the first time you sat down with him, and it went on for quite a bit. But again, you know, you're kind of bringing up this. This concern for sort of dragging people through the mud. But then something I've also heard is that, you know, in other parts of the world, people are facing accountability. Like people in Europe are quitting their jobs or they're getting fired, or, you know, they're losing their status. Obviously, Prince Andrew, it being the most high profile example of this. And then there's the argument that in the United States, there's no accountability. So there's kind of. I hear both things like you're saying, look, this is unfair to anybody who's sort of guilty by association in this court of public opinion. But then I hear the counter argument a lot in the media where it's like, there's not enough accountability for these folks who live in an elite circle above the law. How do you split that?
- [30:06]
A
I mean, it's twofold, right? So one, I don't. I mean, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Not accused, not suspected, but innocent until proven guilty?
- [30:21]
C
Social media. That's what happens.
- [30:23]
A
Exactly. Cancel culture, right? Like the moment that it's even, you know, implicated or suggested that you've done something wrong, you are instantly now proving your own innocence. And it should be the other way around. Right? So again, I. I'm a woman, I'm a mother of a little Girl, like, I want anyone that was a, you know, complicit in this to go to jail. I truly do. But I am not down for, you know, just allowing the public to publicly, you know, I don't want to say crucify, but basically, you know, witch hunt these people and ruin their lives. Because we've seen how badly this happens or how quickly it can happen where someone is simply implicated in something, and now their entire business is, you know, overrun with bad comments online. Whatever it is, people hate them. People are calling for them to resign. I think that if I could be honest, and I think I might have said this at the end of the episode, I wish that this never happened this way. I. To me, the better way to do this would be like any other trial, which is that you actually have investigations into these things privately, outside of the public. You know, I. And then you actually hold the truly guilty people accountable. But right now, I'm just not comfortable with the idea of anybody that was on the list or anyone that might have been in the Epstein class, because that's also ridiculous. Let's shut up about that. I really wish that I had been able to debate him on that particular point, because I was like, what is the Epstein class? What is this? Why do you guys want to hate rich people? Right? Like, I don't hate rich people. I. So this Epstein class, it's such a laughable, you know, conversation, and especially when we're talking about people needing to be held accountable. I'm like, ro, you're in California. Do you know that something like, what was it? 7,000 sex offenders are released in California every single year, and they do an average of 10 months to 2 years of jail time for sex offenders.
- [32:28]
C
Let's.
- [32:29]
A
In Cali.
- [32:29]
C
Let's put a pin in that. Let's put a pin in that for a moment, because I do later on, you guys get to ICE and Immigration and California, which I think is worth digging into. But let's talk about the Epstein class for a second, because that's kind of interesting to me. I mean, I think that, again, if we're just going off of kind of, like, vibes, like, how. How can we not think there's an Epstein class? I mean, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Bill Clinton. I mean, really, really, really wealthy people, obviously. Lex Wexner, head of Victoria's Secret, or owner of Victoria's Secret, you know, like, this is the Epstein files. Well, I agree there's a hysteria around it. From my perspective, it has felt like a window into a world where the law is more malleable and where privilege is a currency or not privilege, where just extreme wealth and status is, is a currency to, to bend the law. Andrew, do you think there's an Epstein class?
- [33:31]
B
Yeah, I do, but definitely not in the way, not in the same way that like where, you know, the, the, the zeitgeist is, you know, treating it at the moment and. Right.
- [33:39]
C
I think by that like a cabal of Satanists. Like what do you mean? How's the zeitgeist different?
- [33:45]
B
Like, like even in the way that like Ro means it when he says it. Like I feel like when Ro says the Epstein class, he, he is just like, he is just talking about like the ultra wealthy can do whatever they want and they'll never get punished. I'm like, come on, that's obviously like, that's not the case. It might be the case that if you are absurdly rich, you know, if you're an Elon Musk type, if you're, you know, if you're a billionaire, yeah, sure, you can afford the best lawyers known to mankind. And that like that's, that is not, that's not nothing. Okay? That's, that's not something you should write off. Okay. That's a big advantage in the legal system. Of course it is. But when, you know, when he says that he like he almost, in my mind now, like maybe he would refute this so I don't want to speak for him too much, but in my mind when I hear him say it, I feel like he just means rich people. And that's like the end of the analysis. It just starts and stops right there. Which is kind of goofy in my eyes. Like there. I do believe there is a class of individuals that can skirt the law and get away with it. I mean, like, look at, look at, you know, our current administration. Like, look at the, look at Pam Bondi. It's funny that like Roe has such a big issue with this thing. Like Pam Bondi is no billionaire, but like she violated the hell out of this law and is going to walk away scot free. But then I come back to, you know, exactly what I went up there to confront him about was like, well, she did violate the law and she is going to completely get away with it. Kind of your fault though. So you know, you know, there is a class of people that can just do whatever they want and break laws and get away with it, but it's not, it's not just like rich people. It's, it's, it's like the political class. And it is people that have, that have people in power looking out for them, you know.
- [35:10]
C
Do you agree with kind of Marion's take that like the left maybe over villainizes this elite rich people, like it's a little bit of a boogeyman?
- [35:20]
B
Yeah, Yeah, I hate that too. Sorry, but. Sorry for. Sorry to the editing team for, you know, giving you more work. But no, I, I hate that too. It's so, you know, my biggest issue with it. It's not even that, like, it's not even that. It's not true. It isn't. To be clear, it's not true. But that's not why. Why I get mad. One of my, like, biggest issues in politics today is that like in America we do have like genuine, real issues that we could and should address. I talk about this all the time. There's stuff, there's. There's real issues that face us as Americans that are fixable or at least like we can work on them and we can make things better, but we can never get to root causes of issues. We can never get to solving anything if we're wasting all our time on, you know, these issues that sell, you know, sell. Well, this, you know, it's the populist. You know, we're in the populist era right now. It's like the, you know, the populism thing, right? We're like, oh, we're going to, you know, we're going to talk about the Epstein class. We're going to tax the billionaires. We're going to like, come on, like there we could solve like if we're going to talk about like wealth inequality or if we want to have like more social programs, like, you know, a lot of the, you know, people like Roe, a lot of their, their rhetoric or their solutions for this would be like, we're just going to tax the billionaires to death. I'm like, bro, if you raise the tax base like across the board, if you just raised everyone's taxes by like 2%, we could pay for whatever we wanted to. We could pay for literally anything we want to do ever. So like, why are we, why, why do we do this? We just focus on the billionaires. It's cringe for sure, but also.
- [36:38]
C
Yeah, but it's strong, strong messaging also really good messaging.
- [36:43]
B
People love it.
- [36:44]
A
Yeah, sorry, that's, that's a big thing for me just to agree with you, Andrew, because what frustrates me but I am on the right. It's like this aggressive fixation on the wealthy as if they're not already paying so much. They pay so, so much in taxes. They already do so much as far as creating jobs. Right. I'm like, look at any society that runs out the wealthy people. You take their businesses, you know, with them, you remove their taxes that they were already giving. So when we start to attack the people that create jobs, that build big corporations that, you know, pay into healthcare systems, et cetera, it is dangerous, especially for those lower down in the, you know, on the totem pole that actually need some type of leg up. This is where they're going to get, you know, a job that doesn't necessarily require a college degree or something like that. So I, I have to agree with Andrew. Except that, you know, it's fine.
- [37:44]
C
Yeah, I do think you're coming at it from agreement, but from different points, points of orientation.
- [37:53]
B
You don't want to raise taxes.
- [37:54]
A
Yeah, no, because where's the money already? Like, that's my. Where's the money?
- [38:00]
B
We don't need to have that dis. Yeah, we don't need to have that disagreement. I think, like, the broader point is that like, like, well, we do disagree on that, but that's not like what we're here to talk about. Like, I do think that, you know, issues like this kind of, they cloud the political zeitgeist and then we don't get to talk about like real things that we could genuinely solve. And I think that's where we're. Where we agree. Right.
- [38:19]
C
Yeah, well, and I mean, just to, to also do kind of the both sides thing as well. I mean, I think the last few years has presented evidence that supports a lot of the arguments. So I think there's a concentration of power that is concerning. I almost think the concentration of power is a bigger thing than the concentration of wealth. Like people who have power through these tech companies. There needs to be a legitimate conversation about what is the responsible way to wield this power and what is the relationship with tech billionaires who can kind of program society through their content. And I'm not saying that they're doing it maliciously. What's, what's the healthy tension between them and the government? So that's one question. But then I hear what you're saying, Marianne, is like, if we're going to focus on taxes and we're going to focus on, hey, there needs to be more money squeezed out of billionaires and millionaires to pay for services, that is probably shouldn't be so easy for someone like Nick Shirley to just like, you
- [39:20]
A
know, Tens of billions of dollars that have been stolen, and he's just one guy looking into it, like.
- [39:28]
C
Yeah. And not all the fraud I think he alleged is probably credible, but I think, you know, there was reporting that followed. I think CBS put out reporting, like, a couple weeks ago that found similar instances in California. So it's like, there is very credible concern for. For fraud across the country. And so it's like, if you're going to make the argument that we need to raise taxes or we need, you know, more tax dollars, there's got to. It's got to be paired with an argument that we're going to do something to combat fraud or else those are ineffective. I. We totally got off track. But something I want to hear from each of you is what do you think about Pam Bondi being out? You know, the news is so fast. Since we recorded this, so much has happened. Did that surprise either one of you?
- [40:15]
B
You know what, though? I'll just want to, like, interject real quick. The funniest thing is because, like, it was very clear that there was, like, some sort of tension between, like, Trump and Bondi for, like, a while. And I remember being at the shoot a couple weeks ago being. Being at the shoot, and we. He made his claim about, you know, Bondi violating the, you know, violating the. The Epstein Files Transparency act, and I walked away. And one of the first things I said while we were just kind of discussing, you know, Amongst ourselves, the 20 of us or whatever, getting ready to leave for the day was it's funny that one of his primary claims, you know, one of. One of his four big points that he came here to talk about was about Pam Bondi. And I was like, what would be hilarious is that this episode releases and in the interim, she gets fired. And so that point is kind of moot. Like, it's like, oh, we're mad at Bondi, but she's not the Attorney General anymore. And sure enough, she's gone. So it's funny that that one came true. As for, like, just, like, broad opinions about her being gone, I don't think it actually changes anything. Like, I think it's delusion to think that. That whoever. Whoever he puts in her place isn't going to behave in the exact same manner. Like, if you think, like, if you're. If you're on the left and you're happy right now, the body's gone. Like, oh, maybe now we're going to get some motion on the Epstein files. You're out of your mind. Okay? You're you're delusional. Whoever goes into that spot next is going to behave in the exact same manner that she was on the file. And in fact, I think it was Todd Blanche, not so long ago, literally said like, hey, the Epstein files thing is done. No more. We're done. No more. No more. We're not releasing anything. That's it. We gave you everything we had. We're done with it, like, right after Bondi was fired. So, yeah, if you, if you, if you're on the left and you think that you're going to get motion on some of these issues now that Bondi's out, if you thought she was the problem, she was the reason that nothing was happening. Come on. Delusion.
- [41:48]
C
How about you, Mary?
- [41:48]
A
I have to agree. I'd have to agree. I mean, I, So I watched her hearing, right? And one of the big conduct in
- [41:56]
C
that hearing, oh, my gosh.
- [41:58]
A
I mean, again, it's this politician, this, this big political, you know, fanfare that they do when the moment that they're asked a very direct and very clear question, they just go aggressively off to the left and just avoid it with everything in them. So that's all that Pam did the entire time. She would not explain why she wasn't going to release all of the files. She would not apologize to the victims, which I understand. Right. Because once you, it's a legal thing, once you apologize, you're admitting some type of guilt. So I get. And I thought that, you know, it very intentional of the, of her opponents to try to get her to apologize to them, because the moment that she did that, they were going to say, well, she knows that she did something wrong and she's admitting that she did something wrong. That said, I don't know the name of the young man that said it, but, you know, when he said that he's a conspiracy theorist, I was in the background like, yep, me too. Because what I know is, no matter, like you said, Andrew, no matter who's in that seat, the conversations happening behind closed doors that we, the public will never know about, they have to be so intense right now. Right. And I said this before, I personally don't believe that Trump did anything wrong. I don't think that there's anything, any wrongdoing on his personal behalf. But if you think of the amount of people on both sides of the aisle that had to be calling him, that had to be giving him death threats, right? Saying, look, do whatever you need to do not to let these files release, because I'm in them and I You know, I will be ruined. We have to be realistic about the fact that this is a very, very intense moment in history. And whoever ends up finally taking the fall for this, which me personally, I think that it's gonna be someone that's paid to take the fall. There's gonna be 10, you know, tops, 10 people that everyone decides, okay, that's our fall guy. They're all gonna just magically be the ones that were the most horrible people and they're gonna pay off all of the, you know, the witnesses to say that it was that one group of people. That's what I think, because I am a conspiracy theorist. So I do think that if we're realistic and honest about how this is really going to go down, we're not going to get anyone to come out and admit fault except for the people that have been pre approved to take the fall for this. That's what I think. So whoever replaces Bondi, they're going to jump right into the same system of hush, hush, let's work out these back, you know, back alley deals. And then whatever they want the public to see is what we'll see.
- [44:26]
B
As for, you know, your point of, like, you know, nothing's going to change, the behavior is going to be the same because, you know, again, this is one of those things where it's like, do I have direct evidence of this? No, but I certainly believe it, that there probably are people, you know, calling up Trump, like, brother, you cannot let those files come out. Like, you can't. Yeah. So we saw Marjorie Taylor Greene say that. We saw, you know, she did an interview, you know, she said that when she talked to Trump on the phone, he said, I don't want these coming out. It's going to hurt my friends. And, you know, so it's. So, you know, that adds to the pile of evidence that probably is what's going on behind the scenes. And then also I think it's funny that you pointed out because I actually had the same take on this. People were outraged, like to some degree I understand the anger. I definitely understand the anger from like a just morality point of view. But you point out that people are outraged that Bondi wouldn't say sorry to the victims. But when I was watching that hearing, that was the first thing I thought you said. It's like admitting some kind of fault. It's, it's even funny because it connects back to the episode when I was talking to Roe. One of the things he said was that a potential, a potential like, road forward would be for the victims to, you know, file a civil suit, you know, to get the files released. Right. To get the government to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. And, you know, we had our whole back and forth about whether or not that's feasible. I think there's going to be standing issues or what, you know, whatever. That's a conversation for another day. But when I was watching that bond hearing, I had the same thought of, like, well, there probably will be a lawsuit from these victims over whether it be just for monetary damages for, you know, the government's behavior or whether it be to get, you know, some sort of motion to compel the release of the rest of the files. Right. And. And she, you know, whether or not I think she's a good attorney, I don't. But she is an attorney. Right. And so in that moment, she. There, there. That was my take. Like, you know what? She probably thought, you know, this lawsuit is coming from these victims. If I turn. If they got me on camera apologizing to them for my behavior, that is not going to help me. You know, when. When that lawsuit gets filed, that is not going to be. That's not going to do me any favors. And so, like, people were looking at it like a moral thing. Like, look at her. She's so evil, she won't even apologize. And, you know, maybe there's some truth in that sprinkled in, I suppose, but that's how a lot of people viewed. And I was just like, I think she's just trying to save her ass when this lawsuit gets filed, because that's not going to be good evidence for the government having her on camera apologizing to the victims for the government's behavior when the. When the victims are suing for the government's behavior. Oh, no.
- [46:43]
C
I want to pull one more clip in just so we can kind of. Because, Marianne, you and Ro went down a little bit of a tangent in the second time you. You debated with him. A lot of different things came up. So I want to give you a moment just to kind of speak to that, and then I have, like, some last questions for both of you. So here's that last clip.
- [47:02]
A
I'm sure they had to be right. Some of them had to be. The frustration I have with the left is that there's this demand for so much accountability when it comes to the rich and the elite, because you just want to hate the rich and the elite. Forgotten.
- [47:12]
D
I represent the Silicon Valley. It's $20 trillion precisely. A lot of people like Jensen Huang, who I Admire who is leading Nvidia.
- [47:20]
A
There are people like, I don't wanna get sidetracked. Sorry. So my frustration is, as a regular, everyday American citizen, I feel that I am more likely to be harmed by democratic policies such as open borders.
- [47:32]
B
Because in your state, I'm not for secure borders.
- [47:34]
A
Okay, so. But in your state, something like 4600 or so illegal migrants that had criminal records were re released from jail. So when we're talking about harming Americans, when we're talking about children potentially being har into child trafficking, we have to acknowledge that illegal migration is the biggest funnel for child trafficking. So when we're worried about Epstein with a couple of people and you guys turn a blind eye to, let me just say, tens of thousands of children,
- [48:01]
D
by your policies, we have been for secure border. But here's what I want. The no one in California can say
- [48:07]
A
that they're for a secure border.
- [48:08]
D
Well, that's a policy I've been pushing for. But let me say this. Instead of having ICE raids in places like Minneapolis killing Americans like Alex Preddy and Renee Good. And doing raids on undocumented folks here who may be paying taxes and having a restaurant, how about we have the focus on the border to stop the terrorists or to stop the gangs or to stop sex trafficking?
- [48:31]
B
I read.
- [48:31]
A
If you're worried about sex trafficking, why
- [48:33]
D
is your focus on the border on
- [48:35]
A
rich people who are committing significantly less sex trafficking crimes? Not saying that they're innocent, but your. Your anger towards this seems very skewed
- [48:43]
D
and very hypocritical to them is because,
- [48:45]
C
yeah, Marian, you didn't let him off the hook. What's it like seeing that back?
- [48:52]
A
You know, I gotta say, I'm actually very glad to see it because I went back thinking about it, I was like, oh, you got a little bit riled up, Marianne. Like, you could have, you know, calmed down. But then I'm very glad that I kept going. I'm glad I kept pushing because this is such a frustration for me when I speak to people on the left and I watch these, you know, politicians come out and do their press conferences, and they point such a funnel or such. Such a light on a very small sector of the overall problem. Right? Like, there are so many crimes being committed by illegal migrants in this country, and just overall, you know, Democrat policies that enable more crime down the line. But then when they want to be reelected and they know that their base considers themselves the little guy, considers themselves, you know, the everyday American, and they want someone to hate. It's a Lot easier for them to point the blame at the rich and powerful and ignoring, like I said earlier, where is the money that we are already giving to this country going? Right. Why is it that I, as a mom, a single mom, when I needed financial assistance and I needed help with my rent, I couldn't get approved. But if I came in and I said, my name is Maria, sorry, I don't have my ID and I just got here from Dominican Republic, I would have gotten more money from my state here in New York City, because that's the way that this system is working. It is completely ignoring the everyday American that needs help from our country. So when we're talking about sexual assault especially, it's insane to ignore the crazy numbers even specifically happening in California. You know, earlier I mentioned it was something like 7,000 sex offenders are re released from prison in California alone every single year. And Roe is saying that we need to focus on this Epstein class. And the reality is the people that are actually hurting the majority of Americans are regular, everyday sex offenders that live right next door to us that got an easy slap on the wrist from a democratic government.
- [50:59]
C
Yeah, I can't corroborate all the statistics that you're saying, but I hear the gist of it. And I think you're one of many who, I take it you're not supporting Gavin Newsom's run for president. And I think there's a lot of criticism moving towards California and similar cities that have developed softer approaches to petty crimes and how that can kind of turn into this revolving door system where it seems like people go into jail, they immediately go out, and eventually one of those people commits a really horrific crime. And it feels like that was a failing of those leaders. And so I hear you there, and I think there's a lot of credibility there and I think there's a really serious conversation to have. A question I have for you, though, is just because you've mentioned you're very, or I guess you're aligned with Trump and you don't think this Epstein stuff really tarnishes your view of him because you have kind of a realist view of him. Do you feel that way overall? Just like when we look holistically, since he's the president now and we obviously have this new war, is any of your support wavering towards him? Do you feel a similar sense of, of criticism towards him as a leader that you do towards Californians as a leader or Californian leaders?
- [52:27]
A
I mean, no, I really don't. I think there's something about the what. What people haven't done when it comes to Trump being a politician. They haven't looked into his past and his previous interviews and just the way that he's been thinking in general. Right? Trump is not saying or doing anything new. If you look at old interviews with Trump, he speaks about how the country is robbing the everyday America and how our money is just being taken from us and used for the wrong reasons and the fact that America in general is not doing enough when it comes to being a global superpower. Right. We're letting ourselves be robbed by things like who and NATO, et cetera, and China with perpetually stealing our patents and knocking off our products that are made here in America. Trump is one of the few presidents, in my opinion, that is so unshakable when it comes to just not caring about whether or not people have his support or whether or not he has people's support. He gets things done that we need to have done here. So, for instance, he's had many different companies that have agreed to move manufacturing back to the United States States because of the tariffs. And no one talks about that. No one talks about the fact that we need more jobs here in the States. Right? No one talks about the fact that, you know, as we have these open borders, we have Americans of lesser means or of lower education levels who are getting priced out of jobs that they need physical labor, jobs that they need because, you know, migrants can come and do it for cheaper because those migrants are not paying income tax. But Americans have to pay income tax, right? So when I look at Trump, there's certain things that I like. Just the other day, he said, you know what? On Resurrection Sunday, he dropped a couple like, F bombs in a tweet and everyone lost their minds.
- [54:20]
C
Open the f king straight is what he said.
- [54:24]
A
Open the effing straight. Right? But the thing about it, for me, I always tell people I'm a real estate agent, and I've been doing real estate here in New York City for eight years, and that's just how these guys talk. That's just how very wealthy New York City real estate mogul is going to talk. They'll go into a room together, they'll curse each other out, they'll talk about each other's grandmother, and then they'll sign a contract and they'll go and have drinks together at a bar next door because it's business, it's not personal. So when you see, even when Trump was able to sit down with Mondami and shake his hand and Everything like this is. Trump is a businessman, and I think that's what the country needs. So I'm comfortable with the fact that he's not going to make everyone happy. He's going to ruffle some feathers. But I think he's doing what is needed. And I still fully support him. I really do.
- [55:16]
B
Yeah.
- [55:16]
C
So you're not buying into this conspiracy theory that he started the war to draw our attention away from the Epstein files?
- [55:24]
A
No. I mean, first of all, what. It's starting the war. We've been at odds with Iran since I was a child. Right. Like, it's Iran. It's really upsetting me that people are acting like Trump created an issue with Iran. It's. That's Iran. Trump is the first president in a while to acknowledge the fact that letting them have any type of nuclear capabilities is absolutely ridiculous. Because they hate us. They hate us with every fiber of their being. So letting them even touch nuclear, you know, nuclear power plants or, you know, start to build their own nuclear power plants is absolutely idiocy. It's idiocy. You cannot let your supreme haters have the biggest weapons known to man.
- [56:11]
C
I'm so tempted to keep talking about the war in Iran, but you'll have
- [56:16]
A
to bring me back. I saw that.
- [56:17]
C
You guys.
- [56:18]
A
Another one. We'll have to do that.
- [56:20]
C
We'll have to do a. Surrounded dedicated to that.
- [56:23]
A
Yes.
- [56:23]
C
Any final thoughts, Andrew, you've been patiently waiting. You want to offer any of your final thoughts on the Epstein files or where you think this is going to be to play out in the near future?
- [56:36]
B
I. I don't even know how to begin to answer this. I think the. The actual answer is we can't really know where it's going to go. I think it's like super heavily depends on how the midterms go. Like if Democrats take control of the House. Well, that's almost a foregone conclusion at this point. But if they take control of the Senate, we might see some more motion on it. But again, all of that's kind of irrelevant. Not even kind of irrelevant. It's pretty entirely irrelevant to me whether we get like, motion on the Epstein files issue on, like, the political side of things. I don't care, you know, as that. I've said it two or three times now at this point, but it remains true, you know, as it relates to the. The files themselves. My only concern, my main concern, and yeah, only concern is, is to prosecute crimes that occurred. Right. And so is it. It's super possible that, you know, we're going to see a bazillion subpoenas, you know, post midterms for, you know, of the new AG and of various DOJ people. And, like, over the Epstein files issue. Yeah, we might see a ton of that. We'll probably see. You'll probably see the house drag in a bunch of people that are, you know, in the files, you know, to bring them in to testify. Like, those are things that'll probably happen, but I just don't care. You know, if. Not. If none of it leads to prosecutions for crimes that actually occurred, then it's. It's all irrelevant to me. You know, I kind of. There is one part of this. You know, Marianne and I have a lot of disagreements, for sure, but I think one thing that we. I kind of agree on is that a lot of this has just been political theater. I do think that. I think that those involved in, you know, pushing the Epstein file stuff as, you know, as hard as they have been, not everybody. There are probably people involved here that just, like, were, like, yeah, sure, it's a good idea to get these out, like, and people want it, so let's just do it. But I think quite a few of them are just like, this is a crazy political opportunity. This is going to be great for my career. And so they. And so that's why they're pushing it so hard. So, you know, as far as that's concerned, you know, as far as. As far as, like, you know, people continuing to push on this to further, you know, you know, boost their name recognition or, you know, help out their crews. I just. I'm checked out. I don't care. I never did. But I really don't get it out.
- [58:47]
C
I think you make a really good point, though, is there will. Let's assume midterms are a wave or a blue wave that does take the House and the Senate. Democrats will be in a position where they do have to really choose carefully what they want the public to relive. And I think with the Epstein file specifically, you make a good point. Yes, crimes that have credible proof and evidence should be prosecuted, but that doesn't necessarily need to happen in a public hearing and a whole new. Several new cycles of headlines, because those events are divisive in and of themselves and tend to sometimes degrade the public's perception of them to begin with. Oh, here she is. So I think you make a good point. If they really do have all three branches, they. They're gonna have to really carefully pick and choose what they choose to do with that.
- [59:46]
D
Yeah.
- [59:46]
B
And if you haven't pieced it together already, like, I'm very, very, very big on, like, on rule of law and institutions and procedure. You know, I started making political content specifically to advocate for constitutionalism and rule of law. And there is a reason. I just want to say some. Sometimes, like, we. Sometimes we lose sight of. Of, you know, we see rules or norms in place, and we kind of lose sight over, like, why they're there. And we just think, like, oh, that's a useless rule. Let's just get rid of that or that. Like, why. Why have we been following that norm? Like, that's not doing anything. Let's get rid of that. And I feel like we're too quick to, like, toss stuff like that away. We don't, like, think there's a really, really good reason for some of these things to be in place. And what I'm getting at is, like, the doj, they do not comment. You know, historically now, things have changed, and I don't like that. Things have changed a lot. They've changed the last year or so. Not. Not too happy with it. But for. For the. The norm has always been that the DOJ does not comment on ongoing investigations. They don't release anything. There's a reason that we have laws in place to protect grand jury information because it's not really hard. It's not very hard to secure an indictment in a grand jury, but it is hard to secure a conviction. It's a way different standard of evidence. So we don't release grand jury information. We don't comment on ongoing investigations. We don't release anything until the trial and until we have a conviction. Right. Like, we just don't do. The DOJ doesn't do that. They never have. Well, they do now, but they. They never have in the past. And there's a reason for that is because it's not the job of the DOJ to character assassinate people. That's not what they're here to do. Their job is to put criminals in prison. That's what they're. That's what they're here for. And so insofar as they can do that, that's great. They should, you know, prosecute people when you can get your convictions. Awesome. That's what they're supposed to do. It's what you should be doing. But this whole thing of, like, oh, you know, we need to drag everybody, you know, and I do understand Congress and the doj, not the same thing, but I think Congress needs to realize or they need to have like a moment of, you know, self reflection where they realize maybe that norm by the doj, now we're not the doj, but maybe that norm by the DOJ is really important and was there for a reason. And maybe we shouldn't be so quick to, you know, to not do that, right? To, you know, drag everybody in for these public hearings and, you know, put them on blast for stuff that you can't prove, nobody can prove, or at least not yet. Maybe, hey, maybe I'll eat my words. Maybe we'll get 75 convictions, you know, in the next year or two. Who knows?
- [62:03]
C
Probably not.
- [62:04]
B
Yeah, right. But until then, like just chill out. Let the DOJ process, you know, and now I don't necessarily have faith that this DOJ will, but let maybe the next DOJ do it.
- [62:14]
C
Yeah. Well, no, I appreciate your point of view and we are up on time. I just want to thank you both for being a part of this follow up and obviously being in the first video with the representative. I'm excited for you to see the whole thing when it comes out. And I think a couple days and hopefully this won't be the last time you guys go face to face with an elected official for our channel. Let's keep keep it going.
- [62:39]
A
I would love it. I had a great time. Thank you.
- [62:42]
C
If you want to see more follow up episodes of Surrounded, be sure to like, leave us a positive review. Comment. If you're watching the video on YouTube, you can subscribe to Tubli, Jubilee's second channel. You can also subscribe to Jubilee to see full Surrounded episodes. But however you want to support us, just thank you so much for listening. Remember, you could be wrong, so could I. Keep your mind open until next time.