![The [REDACTED] Files — Talking Feds cover](https://megaphone.imgix.net/podcasts/0c16258a-29ea-11f0-8ea5-5b14cbe3bfcf/image/5ce0b9f672ac35931181bb4fc7c4cc20.jpeg?ixlib=rails-4.3.1&max-w=3000&max-h=3000&fit=crop&auto=format,compress)
Loading summary
Transcript93 lines
- [00:00]
A
Thursday Night Football is on Christmas night and it's only on Prime Video. Wide open touchdown this week the Denver Broncos and the Kansas City Chiefs meet in a Christmas night showdown.
- [00:11]
B
Has the league ever seen anything like this?
- [00:13]
A
Coverage begins at 7:30 Eastern, with football's best party teeing up tonight. Presented by Verizon. Not a Prime member, not a problem. Simply sign up for a 30 day free trial. It's the Broncos and Chiefs Christmas night at 7:30 Eastern. Only on Prime Video. Restrictions apply. See Amazon.com amazonprime for details.
- [00:37]
C
Welcome to Talking Feds, a roundtable that brings together prominent former federal officials and special guests for a dynamic discussion of the most important political and legal topics of the day. I'm Harry Littman. A blockbuster Vanity Fair story built on interviews with Trump chief of staff Susie Wiles yanked back the curtain on the president's inner circle this past week. Washington is still scrambling to make sense of Weill's sharp jabs at other top officials and her striking admissions, including about Trump's lies to the public and his embrace of reprisal prosecutions against his political enemies. Meanwhile, Democrats and some Republicans attacked the Department of Justice for its woeful failures to meet the terms and deadline of the Epstein Transparency act, including releasing all of its huge trove of materials about Epstein. The department instead dribbled out only a small fraction of the files, promising more later, and the disclosed material seemed curated to provide no new information on Trump. In the Caribbean, US Forces are acting on Trump's instructions to seize tankers carrying Venezuelan oil. Quotes from Susie Weil's bombshell interviews provide the latest evidence that Trump's real goal in Venezuela is regime change and that he is prepared to risk pulling the country into war to achieve it. To discuss a week that gave us a detailed look inside a White House that revolves around Trump's whims reveal Trump's broader agenda on Venezuela, but left us still guessing about the contents of the Epstein files. I'm really pleased to welcome three of the most insightful observers of the national political scene, and they are Aaron Blake, a senior political reporter at cnn, where he writes daily analyses of this administration's moves and maneuvers. Before cnn, he spent a decade as a mainstay at the Washington Post after stints reporting for the Hill and for his hometown. Minneapolis Star Tribune. Aaron, great to see you.
- [03:03]
B
Good to be here, Harry.
- [03:04]
C
Senator Heidi Heitkamp Senator Heitkamp served as the first female senator elected from North Dakota and served from 2013 to 2019. Before that, she served eight years as North Dakota's attorney General and until recently was the head of the Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago. Great to welcome you as always, Senator Heitkamp.
- [03:27]
D
Thanks for having me on, Harry.
- [03:29]
C
And always a pleasure to say first time on Talking Fed's Jasmine Wright, the White House correspondent for notice. Before covering the administration, Jasmine was the go to reporter for INSIGHT on Kamala Harris's presidential run. And as I say, first time on Talking Feds. Hope it won't be the last. So nice to see you and welcome you, Jasmine Wright.
- [03:53]
E
I'm so happy to be here, Harry. Thanks.
- [03:56]
C
All right, so let's start with this blockbuster Vanity Fair story by the reporter Chris Whipple. It's one of these mammoth year long projects over 11 or more interviews. It does have a series of incendiary revelations that predictably have dominated the headlines. We've digested the biggest ones. I think Trump has an alcoholic's personality. Musk used ketamine. But there's quite a lot more. Let me just serve it up. Generally, what most stood out to you.
- [04:28]
B
In this magnum opus, I would say a couple things. One was the palace intrigue aspect of it, where she said some things that were unkind. I would say to Vice President J.D. vance, certainly to Attorney General Pam Bondi, who she accused of botching the release of the Epstein files. I'm not sure anybody really disputes that necessarily. Maybe she was just pointing to reality there. But from a policy perspective, I was really struck by what she said about Venezuela, where she basically suggested that these strikes that the administration is taking against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean are, aren't really necessarily about drugs. She didn't say that part of it, but she said they're really about applying pressure on Nicolas Maduro and about the administration's pressure campaign in Venezuela, which is not really how the administration has sold those boat strikes. And I think it really kind of speaks to a very relevant issue, which I know we're gonna talk about later here.
- [05:27]
C
Yeah. I'll just say I don't think it was subtle. He wants to keep blowing up boats until Maduro cries uncle. And besides saying, oh, everything we've told you to date and it's been shifting already from fentanyl to cocaine, wasn't true. I think it's also got legal implications that that's actually what turns out to be the footing.
- [05:48]
D
Well, she also said that she didn't see a land war in Venezuela. So without congressional approval, now you know what she says and what the president would do or what the secretary of War would do are probably two different things. I think the most remarkable thing is here's. Here's a woman who has been under the radar. Kind of people think that she is the steady hand on the keel. She's just making sure all the boats run on time. And she does an interview like this. And I've yet to figure out the motivation for why she did it. Cause she's been so inaccessible to the media before this. And so to me, there's gotta be, to Erin's point, there's gotta be some palace intrigue. I don't think she does things willy nilly. I think she does things on purpose. And I think that she's got a reason for sending this out. And she must be feeling very, very comfortable with her relationship with Trump because obviously this is not a good story for the administration. But by the same token, it is a story that enlightens you about her. You know, what's interesting is a lot of the Gen Z people, they aren't even reading the story, they're looking at the pictures. You know, the photo shoot is one of the more remarkable things about the story.
- [07:12]
C
Very top end pictures, right? Yeah, yeah.
- [07:15]
D
But you know, why would all these people line up and sit on a desk or sit on a table and, you know, I mean, I have no idea. She must have convinced him to do it or they must have wanted that kind of publicity. But the fact she did it, I think is the most remarkable thing about the story.
- [07:34]
E
I think that there's so many just like incredibly interesting vignettes into the relationships among the people that President Trump are talking to day in and day out. And if you are reading the digital version of the story, they're kind of placed all over in little. And so you're really having to like look forward and read all of the text. Just the way it's visually presented is so much part of the story. I think my biggest takeaways is, and the conversations that I've been having since then are of course folks not just on the left, but of course on the right, who like Susie, who feel that Suzy has done a good job of keeping all of the cylinders rolling at the same time and on the same track, questioning why she did it, what the motivation was. But fundamentally, I think that she speaks to so much about the way that she operates as a Trump chief of staff and how that is so different from his previous chiefs of staffs in the first year. When I've talked to people in the past, they say the only way that Susie is going to leave the White House is if she decides to leave the White House. And I think that you're seeing that play out in real time. I mean, in this piece she talked about how she has been overruled on various things and she seemed very comfortable with it, saying basically, that's the way it goes. She's made it clear that she's not looking to control Trump or to push Trump away from his kind of worst instincts. She made this point to say that they had a 90 day deal where he would have to wrap up all of his quote, unquote retribution actions. And clearly he's blown past that. And she's like, well, what can you do, really? I mean, she didn't. That's not the quote, but that's kind of the vibe of when you're reading it. She talks about the Cabinet in some flippant ways. But fundamentally, I think you're seeing the view of how arguably Trump's most successful to this date, chief of staff has been able to not just operate, but continue to maintain the trust of not just Trump, but everybody in the White House and allies. Because until now, you haven't really heard a lot of people, maybe some on the RFK side, but you really haven't heard a lot of people taking shots at her. And maybe that opens a door now. But fundamentally, I think you're seeing so much about her ethos and the way that she views her job. And I think it's very fundamentally different than the men who were in those previous roles.
- [09:51]
C
Well, that's a very good point. I think I'm not the chief of you. She says, and she's groundbreaking, not just for Trump, but I think in the chief of staff role, you often hear about these, for lack of a better word, testosterone fueled kind of White Houses. And she really does stand stand out as the calmer facilitator, the role that she chooses for herself.
- [10:12]
D
Well, I mean, the one thing, when I think about her motivation, she is at her best a political operative. I mean, she basically engineered the return to the White House. Everybody who was a Democrat said, finally, this administration or Trump has somebody who actually knows what they're doing. She is somebody who is respected by Democrats as a political operative. I think she's reading the tea leaves. I think she's seeing the poll numbers, and I think she's thinking, look, we need to shake something up. We need to kind of change the subject from, you know, Trump stepping on the affordability message. So she's got plenty of testosterone, she's plenty tough. I would Not, I would not to.
- [10:57]
E
Push back on that, though. She started these conversations in January.
- [11:01]
B
Yes.
- [11:01]
E
You know what I mean? So how would she know that this is, I mean, maybe this is just a pitfall of all modern presidencies, is that after 11 months people are just going to dislike you. And that's just where we're at politically right now. But I mean, she gave 11 interviews to Chris Whipple, somebody who other chiefs of staffs basically told her don't talk to for 11 months in, you know, some in her West Wing office. Other times in the article, it says that she was talking on the phone while she was doing her laundry. Right. You're going to be probably more candid when you're doing stuff like that. So, like, like, yes, I think that there, it's very clear that she is like a political strategist, that she does not do things willy nilly. I think that there is very little chance that whatever the conditions that Chris Whipple has said were the conditions that he's not being honest about that. I think there's very little chance of that. And you're not hearing that come from the White House.
- [11:51]
F
Right.
- [11:51]
E
You're hearing them say they was taken out of context and that this is a way to smear the Trump administration. But you're not hearing her say that she wasn't on the record. You're not hearing her say that she was misquoted. It just happened over such a broad amount of time and there's just so much in here. I mean, I can't imagine what the tapes say that saying that she's trying to refute the last month, which hasn't been that great for Trump, you know, I just don't see that being true.
- [12:15]
F
It's fair.
- [12:16]
C
Can I follow up on that for a second? Because look, and it's the point both of you had made about the volume, 90% of this is pretty damn positive. There are some things that I especially found frightening about the retributions. But even the big headline alcoholics personality, which I think she sort of turns into an attribute and Trump embraced it, was telling. I thought that the next day he didn't seem upset, her status seems unaffected. I just wonder if the whole thing is a more sophisticated insider's play than we all appreciate that why would she say these things? You know, you give up a little bit of headlines and bait for credibility's sake. But do you think in some way she knew exactly what she was doing, even as she peppered him with some big revelations? And this really is. If you Take a step back. It's a pretty favorable view of a president who to so many people is.
- [13:22]
D
Well, nobody's reading the whole thing. They're only reading these top lines that are negative. I mean, everybody here has read the whole thing and said, oh, you know, it's kind of a, that's not the headline. And so anytime you give an inch of things that can be spun, you're putting your reputation on the line. And I don't see that this was an attempt or was successful at all in making them look like they're a well oiled machine.
- [13:50]
B
Yeah, it certainly didn't make them look like that. As to Harry's question about, like, you know, how deliberate is this? When I was reading this, I kept thinking back to the first term and one of the things that we all kind of thought was really funny was like when Lindsey Graham would go on Fox News during prime time and he'd say things and you'd be like, oh, he's talking to one person here. He knows that Trump is watching this interview and he's basically just catering to what he wants Trump to hear because he knows this is the medium how you reach Trump. It's like these members of Congress, for some reason calling Trump wasn't an option, or getting his chief of staff's ear wasn't an option, or it didn't get the results that they wanted. So they, they took this other thing where they went on TV and made this statement. I do wonder if maybe there's a little bit of that going on where, you know, Susie Wiles recognizes there are certain things that have happened over the course of the last 11 months that aren't great. And maybe there's not a great way to bring that up with Trump. But hey, here's this kind of prestigious, you know, magazine that Trump would recognize from his era. This was a very big deal of a magazine, Vanity Fair. And, you know, they have these beautiful photo spreads. Maybe that maybe she thinks registers with him a little bit more than, you know, just having a meeting or something in the Oval Office.
- [15:09]
E
I actually think she comes off quite well in the piece. I mean, I think she comes off as kind of the adult in the room and that she's looking around and she's saying like, yeah, I know that some of these people are maybe not doing their best work. And I recognize that that's happening. And, you know, I mean, yes, it does give credence to this. Like, okay, this is still a chaotic Trump White House. And like, yes, this still may be a group of friends, but also a group of frenemies as existed in the Trump 1.0. But I think that she comes off as pretty humane. I think she comes off as kind of funny in a lot of moments. I don't know if, as a chief of staff, your goal is to humanize yourself. I don't know if that is the trajectory of what you want to do as chief of staff, but I actually think that she comes off looking kind of like the best out of all of the folks who are around Trump all the time.
- [15:55]
D
I will tell you, as somebody who, you know, dealt with a lot of chiefs of staff, your goal is to be invisible.
- [16:01]
E
Okay, well, then, yeah, she did, and.
- [16:03]
D
That'S not what she did. Yeah, you're never supposed to overshadow the principle.
- [16:08]
C
And yet the principal was. Seems to be unperturbed. Were you surprised that Trump.
- [16:14]
D
Well, who knows what he is.
- [16:16]
C
Well, he didn't have any trouble with, say, Kelly or, you know, others when cutting other people loose. She seems to remain in good graces. You think that could be camouflage?
- [16:26]
B
Possibly. I would say this would not be a great time for them to suddenly have a bunch of internal turmoil. You know, this is probably the worst time for that. So maybe there was a decision made that they would just kind of try to move on from this. I'm not so sure that that necessarily is going to be the case. Like, if you're Pam Bondi and you see this magazine piece and what Susie Wiles just said about you, like, how can you just let that go? She really kind of kicked Pam Bondi when she was down. And so it feels like this might manifest itself in some various ways. Maybe not immediately, but over the course of the next several weeks and months.
- [17:02]
D
Aaron, she didn't say anything about Pam Bondi that she didn't say to Pam's face.
- [17:06]
B
Yeah, possibly. But saying it publicly is a reputational thing, too.
- [17:10]
E
Probably she said it nicer to Vanity Fair than she said it to her face.
- [17:14]
D
I agree with you, Jasmine. I think it was toned down, but.
- [17:18]
E
Yeah, I think whiffed was the actually word effed up.
- [17:22]
D
Might have been what she actually said.
- [17:24]
E
Yeah. I'm sure that she said a lot more unkind words to Pam Bondi's face than she did to Chris Paul. Yeah. And then. And then Pam Bondi tweets, my dear friend Susie Wiles. So, yes, I think that it'll take a longer time to materialize. I think, fundamentally, people in the White House believe that they need Susie Wiles. And when I read Trump's comments in the New York Post basically saying, well, I'm not offended by that. I do have an alcoholic's personality. And what she meant by that is, you know, I don't drink, everybody knows that. But I have a bigger than this earth personality. And so I read those as being basically him saying like, Susie, please don't leave us. We need you. And I think that that is also extrapolated by all of the admin and lawmakers and allies. It's probably easier to count who didn't tweet in support of Susie Wiles than who did just because of just the onslaught of the way that they kind of did A all hands on deck, as one source put it to me, effort to kind of wrap themselves around the chief of staff. And so yeah, it may someone suggested to me that it may materialize as that you're just going to hear more people secretly, you know, talking crap about her and that may make its way into more stories when things continue to go wrong, if they do. But I don't think you're going to see just some very swift action. Maybe he yelled at her, maybe not. We just don't know.
- [18:46]
C
Now I think I'm a little bit of a dissenting view in that even the alcoholic's personality, she managed to put the best face on what we know about Trump as not caring about policy, being very impulsive, going here and there and making a look in some guise of actually presidential, which really, you know, very few people believe. I also did want to say I thought Jasmine, your point is very good about and Senator, you know, we've had these chiefs of staff in the past, Rahm Emanuel comes to mind. But you see them as driving policy and butting heads and getting people together. And she in her self proclaimed role as facilitator and including backing, you know, down sometimes you look at the Vanity Fair pictures and like everybody is a different shade of crazy to me. And then she's sort of standing out. She makes it seem like, you know what, maybe this whole message somehow gets it together. So I definitely take your point about the headlines and that that's what people read. But I think it was a little bit more calculated to please Trump.
- [19:51]
D
But you have to remember she's presiding over a White House that has some of the poorest poll numbers in the history of polling. She's presiding over a White House where favorabilities of her president right track, wrong track numbers. I mean, you can talk all you want about her style and what it is the results are. Where are you at right now with the public and with the voters, and they've lost serious races in the interim here, and they're headed for a catastrophe in the midterm election. So, you know, that's on her. That's on her. And so I think, in some ways, damage control.
- [20:28]
C
Why do you say that that's on her?
- [20:29]
D
Because she runs the White House.
- [20:31]
C
Just, you think everything's on her. Success and failures.
- [20:34]
D
Right, right. And you think Trump's gonna take responsibility?
- [20:38]
C
No, no, no, of course not. I just mean she takes some of his obvious foibles and puts a slight spin on them as if it's not, you know, completely reckless, thoughtless, et cetera.
- [20:50]
D
I mean, as a human interest story, it's good. As a political story, you know, it's not going well over there whether or.
- [20:57]
E
Not she's gonna be responsible for the midterm losses, if that's what happens. Yeah. I mean, I don't know if Trump is gonna take responsibility for it, but I think that people will blame him. I find it hard to believe that, like, headlines will say, Susie Wiles and White House gets creamed in the midterms. Right. I think it's just. I think that the public perception is all going to be Trump. Now, whether or not she exits right after that, you know, I think that that can be a conversation, and that's.
- [21:21]
C
Sort of a standard time to exit for a chief of staff, right?
- [21:24]
E
Yeah, yeah. I mean, I think the longest chief of staff that Trump had was 17.
- [21:30]
B
17 months, I think.
- [21:31]
E
Yeah, yeah, 17 months. So, I mean, if she beats that, then, like, she's good, really, if that's her metric. So. So I think Trump has been talking so much about midterms, and he's clearly putting his mental stream out there that he's concerned about them, that he doesn't understand why, even if you're doing well, which, you know, we can debate that, but even if you're doing well, the ruling party still loses seats in the midterm elections. That, I don't know, maybe internally that she's like, your what. What you had me do doesn't work. But I think that they're kind of. The folks who I talk to are kind of resoundingly like, yeah, we might lose the midterms. That, you know, not considering Voting Rights act or maybe some of these, like, incremental redistricting maps and states and stuff like that. But, yeah, I don't know if she'll be, like, fully to blame.
- [22:19]
D
Well, if the midterms swing at the percentages that these special elections have swung. The Democrats will pick up 40 seats.
- [22:27]
C
Yeah. Some like 90% have been double digit swings, right?
- [22:31]
B
Yeah. I mean, those will be very hard to match in a higher turnout midterm election. But, you know, I did read this story and thought, you know, if you thought the coming election was going to go very poorly for your side, it does benefit you to have been the person who blew the whistle on a few of the problems that were taking place in the White House.
- [22:50]
C
That's actually a great point. And, you know, it does. It does seem to me also that these little snipes people are gonna really remember. This is gonna be playing out for a while, I think. And you it's a blockbuster story. I wanted to talk about what everyone anticipated as the big story of the week this afternoon, which was the legally required compulsory release of all the Epstein files by the doj. Surprise, surprise, we learned from the deputy attorney general this morning. Maybe just they'll do it rolling over a few weeks. Any thoughts about the DOJ's game plan here? They were obviously boxed into a corner after Trump and others tried to resist. How do you see them complying in half measures or not with the required disclosures?
- [23:44]
B
I think it's a little bit of a problem potentially. You know, Todd Blanch, the deputy attorney general, went on Fox News on Friday morning, suggested that the deadline would not be completely met. They would deliver, I think he said, hundreds of thousands of documents and then there would be more that would be rolled out over the next couple of weeks here. Of course, that brings into play all the holidays that we're heading for right here with Christmas and New Year's. If you were not wanting people to pay as much attention to things, it's better to release them around those times. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but the administration has, over the course of the last five months done a great job of making it look like they have something to hide. They have over and over again made clear that they do not want these documents out there. They said that very shortly after Trump was told his name was in these files, which was what Pam Bondi told him in May. And so it's fair to point out that there are tons of documents here that they had to go through. They had 30 days to do it. It's a very difficult thing to do. But you know, when you're dealing with something like this and people are already extremely suspicious of the US Government's handling of this issue, not just the Trump administration, but The US Government as a whole, going back years, and you come on the day of the deadline and you say, oh, we're not going to be able to get all these documents out to you by this deadline. I think it's not going to be great from a political standpoint.
- [25:09]
E
Yeah. I just think that the administration had the fundamental opportunity, though. I mean, difficult, right? Like going through and actually making sure you're taking out the names and harmful details of hundreds of thousands of pages is extremely tedious. It probably takes more workforce than the DOJ has available because so many people have left the DOJ over the course of the last month, you know, et cetera, et cetera. They still have the opportunity to just kind of put this behind them and start in the new year and say, we have given you everything that we have. Let's turn the page on this. Let's focus on the work that the DOJ is doing, let's focus on the work that Trump is doing on the economy, et cetera. And now you're just clearly going to see it continue, continue, continue. I think for people on the right, specifically, who want to see some resolution to it, obviously, I don't think that they have that same type of furor that they had, let's say, in March or in July. But for people who want to see exactly what are in these files, even though the administration says there's nothing here, they're just files, you know, obviously this is going to be a letdown for them, and, you know, it's going to continue. All the questions about what's missing, what are hiding. I think one thing that I heard from officials and folks aligned with Trump when the discharge petition was happening was kind of this concern, I think you heard Trump speak to it, too, that this wouldn't be enough. Nothing is going to be enough for folks who believe in these conspiracies, that there is a client list, that there is this magic document that just breaks open the case because it doesn't exist, they say. And I don't think that doing this drip, drip, drip, which is what Todd Blanche talked about, helps mute those conversations.
- [26:54]
D
Yeah, I don't either. And if I can just add, I'm not prone to conspiracy theories, but they have to be really careful because there was litigation in the Virgin Islands. There has been civil litigation. They aren't the only people that have copies of these documents. And you try and mess with these documents and try and redact things that shouldn't be redacted, you could get caught. I mean, and any little slip up where they're trying to whitewash what in fact happened. And I think that they bet that Democrats would say, oh, you know, we know there's Democrats that are in this, so we're going to stand with the administration and not want them released. They bet wrong. They bet wrong. And so to me, the challenge that they have is that they now have gone through these documents. They're trying to figure out how they do damage control, which is why I think they could release them tomorrow. These have been redacted, in my opinion. They're just trying to figure out what's going to be the reaction when they are released. And also if they modify these documents in any way, how that cover up could be exposed based on these documents being in the possession of the estate, these documents being the possession of the district court in the Virgin Islands. I mean, that's not the only place or in Florida.
- [28:19]
C
I mean, it's really true. And I can say as a lawyer, there are just copies here and there. And it would only take one cover up to be a really huge scandal story. I was last night on Deadline White House with a victim, and there are a whole bunch of them and many of them went to the FBI, gave their stories and haven't had occasion, I think, for those stories to come out. So they're what they call FBI 302s, and the administration must know it and must be scouring those very carefully. But those kinds of stories, which apparently include, I'm sure you saw the Nick Comfit story story in the New York Times this week, that gives to me a plausible view of what could be there. Not no one's had any kind of allegation of actual criminal activity. But it drew a very, I thought, persuasive, plausible story of Trump and Epstein as sort of frenemies and, you know, in competition for who has the most sexual conquest and really revolting treatment of the women that Epstein had groomed. So you have to think that some of the survivors accounts will include that sort of, even if not criminal, really ugly look at Trump in particular. But we start at this premise. You're so right. They've tried like crazy to keep it bottled up. It's almost impossible for people to be reassured. But on the other hand, he has weathered so many storms like this beginning, you could say, with Access Hollywood. It just whets everyone's interest. What could it be? And they're a little bit, you know, I hate to say this, but they're a little bit damned if they do, damned if they don't. Right. What was your take on the New York Times story about, you know, him and Epstein's big bromance?
- [30:16]
B
It was a fascinating story, and Nick is a fantastic reporter. We should add that my former colleague at the Washington Post, Julie Tate, who is a fantastic researcher, was also on that story. And you could. As I was reading it, I could see her fingerprints all over this because she really does great work. As I was reading it, you know, I think the. The thrust of it is basically like, you know, there have been times where Trump and those around him have basically said there wasn't much of a relationship between these two guys. They were two wealthy people who were hanging around in Palm beach together, and they ran into each other because they ran in similar circles. This story really made it very clear that that is not the case, that they had a very close relationship over the years. They would call each other, they were around each other a lot. They went to the same parties a lot. They really had this relationship that, you know, reinforces that Donald Trump's name, whether, you know, even if there's never anything that he did that is proven to be wrong, is going to show up in documents like these because they were around each other so much. And I also think it also reinforces something which is what we've been talking about before, which is the White House has done a great job of making this look suspicious because Trump has denied a close relationship with Epstein. Now, is that because he knew Epstein was involved in all these things after the fact or because, you know, he was around it at the time? We don't know that. We're gonna find out a little bit more when these documents come out. But it really is kind of remarkable, the level of their relationship that was revealed in this story and kind of the detail that was able to be pulled out here. A lot of these people pulling out these details of things that happened in the 90s and the early 2000s exchanges that they had in parties. It seems like these men were quite close for a period of time. Even if that really stopped apparently in the early 2000s, if it did.
- [32:07]
C
So let's say that's right. That at the bottom line is there really is a lot of evidence of just total gross, you know, locker room and very palpable mistreatment of the women that Epstein had groomed, et cetera. We've seen, as I say, him weather different scandals, but this has seemed different from the start, in part because of the real interest of some of his supporters in maga. If we have, you know, Access Hollywood on steroids is that, you know, serious damage.
- [32:39]
D
You know, Access Hollywood did not involve minors. I mean, this is a whole different thing. And what I find interesting is we all want the records, we all want the logs, but why aren't people believing the victims? The victim statements have been outrageous and ubiquitous. And so my challenge in all this, as somebody who did a lot of this work as Attorney general, is that I think that it's kind of, once again, they were victims. But we're not gonna believe you were a victim until we see the documents, until we see the records. And so Trump has let this fester. And that's why I think this, like, sending it out a little bit at a time is really stupid. I think if he had dumped all those records back when Pam Bondi had an opportunity to dump all those records, this thing would be behind him. I really believe that it might not be behind some people who are going to be in those records. But, you know, to me, what's gotten lost in all of this is the fact that victims have said things that people don't want to believe unless they get some kind of, you know, email proof that that actually happened.
- [33:51]
E
Yeah, I think the victims is a key part here, because obviously they are, you know, one. A major reason why we've gotten to this point. Right. Because of their continued advocacy for these documents to be released so they can tell a more fulsome story of the real tragedy that they witnessed. I think a couple things. I think that it just cannot be overstated or downplayed. To your point, Harry, about how much of Trump's base is really bought into this and a key driver in what we see happening, and not just his base. Right. Because so much of the 2024 conversation was about, when Trump gets in office, he's going to release all these files. Folks who are currently in his cabinet or in his administration in top places were some of the loudest voices stoking these conspiracy theories about a client list on their podcasts, about all of the evidence that they believe that the government is hiding from the American people. And then when they get into office, they're like, actually, we've seen the files, and they're nothing. You know what I mean? People just aren't going to believe that. They're just not going to believe it. And that's coming from his own supporters. I mean, I think Bindergate, obviously, when they brought in all the influencers to the White House and they held up their Jeffrey Epstein binders. I mean, incredible photo. I was on the South Lawn that day or North Lawn that day, watching them. And I was like, what is going on? But that certainly played a role in people kind of drawing a huge question mark around it. And then just in terms of the two New York Times articles, the one about the specific relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and President Trump, and also the second one about how Jeffrey Epstein got so rich, which was such a good article tracking before he became this extremely rich person who was able to take advantage of a lot of people, how he was taking advantage of a lot of people as kind of a poor person making his way to be a rich person. The lack of outrage from the administration on those two pieces compared to the Wall Street Journal story that showed the birthday card. I'm quoting this way, I don't get sued. The birthday card that was signed.
- [36:00]
C
I saw the air quotes, everyone.
- [36:01]
E
Yeah, there were air quotes there allegedly signed by Donald Trump that he is saying was not by him and he is suing them for. And so I just think that that's such a clear moment of where we are, which is that the administration lost, right? They lost in trying to say that these records shouldn't come out. They lost in trying to say that there's nothing conv. Convincing people that there is nothing there. And they lost in trying to make it seem like Donald Trump doesn't look a little questionable here. I'm not saying that he is. Obviously, they continue to say there's been no wrongdoing, and all these documents don't say that. But I just think that we have seen a fundamental loss on this administration's ability to control the narrative around Epstein. And that is playing out because you have these two blockbuster pieces, one directly implicating President Trump in the 90s, and you kind of haven't really heard a peep about him from the administration or the President himself.
- [36:58]
C
And to Aaron's point, they really have provided all this catnip that, of course, reporters would follow, like what is out there. I just want to combine what you just said, Jasmine, what the senator said to say. Again, these 302s, the actual narratives. I think this is going to be the time where the victims actually become front and center. Now you're going to have the statements contemporaneous where they said certain things. I think they are mobilized and organized together. And that part that has been missing and underplayed, perhaps in part because of Congress, will be front and center and unavoidable. We'll see. Now it's time for our sidebar feature. When we ask a question prominent person from another field to explain a legal issue in the news. This is a special and really sad sidebar. As everyone knows, Rob Reiner and his wife Michelle Singer Reiner, were tragically killed last weekend. Rob, of course, was a legendary actor and filmmaker whose work, always hilarious and dead on, grew to be more and more inspiring and heartfelt and part of the national culture. Far more than a comic filmmaker, he leaves behind a wide range of indelible, deeply human films. The Princess Bride, this is Spinal Tap, A Few Good Men, the American President, and many more. Reiner was deeply involved in California and national politics. He co founded the American foundation for Equal Rights, which initiated the court challenge against California Prop 8 dealing with same sex marriage. Rob was also an early supporter and good friend of this podcast. He generously hosted a recording at his home and he also was one of the handful of people who recorded two different sidebars. And I can't say it was because of any sort of special friendship with me. Rob was equally supportive and generous to so many commentators in the early days when people were first sounding the alarm about Donald Trump in tribute to him. Today's sidebar is adapted from a previous one he read in 2022 about the rise of American antisemitism, a very fitting topic three years later, unfortunately, in light of the horrific attack on Jews in Australia, which took place within hours of his killing, I give you Rob Reiner on antisemitism.
- [39:47]
G
Last year there were more than 2,700 acts of antisemitic assault, vandalism and harassment, a 34% increase from 2020. That's an average of more than seven incidents per day, making it the worst year on record since the Anti Defamation League began compiling this data in 1979. And those numbers don't express the gravity of the worst kind of incidents, like the murders of 11 worshippers at Pittsburgh's Tree of Life synagogue in 2018. During the Trump era, right wing hate groups have proliferated dramatically on social media. The urgency for a strong government response to rising antisemitism is critical. So last week, at the urging of a bipartisan group of more than 100 Senate and House members, President Biden announced the creation of an interagency task force headed by the Domestic Policy Council and the National Security Council to create a whole of government approach to threats and violence against Jewish communities. Now, we know that the government alone can't magically eradicate age old hatred and scapegoating of Jews, but by leveraging all tools of the federal government and sharing best practices with state and city governments and stakeholders like the adl, we can hold anti Semitic people and groups legally accountable.
- [41:21]
C
Thank you so much for that, Rob Reiner. To quote Rob's words from the American President, America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. We have serious problems to solve and we need serious people to solve them. Thank you and rest in peace, Rob Reiner. All right, it is now time for a spirited debate brought to you by our sponsor, Total Wine and more. Each episode you'll be hearing an expert talk about the pros and cons of a particular issue in the world of wine, spirit and beverages.
- [42:06]
F
Thank you, Harry. In today's spirited debate, we peek behind the wine label to see who lays claim to the best Chardonnay, California or Burgundy. France. As we've touched on before, wines from the US Are classified by the grape, while French wines are classified by the region. In France, the region of Burgundy produces some of the finest Chardonnays, known as White Burgundies, which are almost always made from Chardonnay grapes. To put it simply, when you see a white wine from Burgundy, you know it's a Chardonnay. The cooler weather and cloud cover in Burgundy creates wines that have less of the rich fruit flavors you might find in a California Chardonnay. But what white Burgundies lack in fruitiness, they make up for in highly aromatic and complex flavors that range from tropical notes and crisp green apples to fresh jasmine and exotic spices. And you don't have to book a flight to France to taste them either. Just swing in to your local Total Wine and more and ask one of our guides for a tour of our white Burgundies at a great value. Swinging over to California Chardonnays, you'll notice that they tend to be rich, full bodied whites that have undergone malolactic fermentation and heavier doses of new oak. But that's actually a great thing because it helps to create a creamy, buttery feel and flavors of butterscotch, vanilla and ripe tropical fruits with medium acidity, which make for an ideal bottle. So when the mood calls for Chardonnay and you're torn between California and Burgundy, come talk to our guides at Total Wine and More, where it's always easy to meet in the Middle east and grab a bottle of each.
- [43:36]
C
Thanks to our friends at Total Wine and More for today's a spirited debate. Let's take just a few minutes because you mentioned it before, Aaron, about what's going on in Venezuela, including Susie Wiles comment of this is really all about regime change. You Know, what the hell the incredible focus of the administration to bring down this guy, to try to provoke him into war. What possible broader interests of the US does it serve? Or why are Trump and Hegseth going after him so directly?
- [44:13]
B
I think it's clear that Maduro has been somebody that Trump has kind of had an eye on for a long time. Not necessarily in the regime change sense, but, you know, going back to his first term, this was a focal point for Trump. He doesn't like Maduro, but it is remarkable to see them kind of walk up to the line of saying we might invade this country. I don't. I don't think this is really, like, set in with people. I think a lot of people just assume that this is bluster and that basically he's trying to hold this threat out there to get Maduro to relinquish power voluntarily or get some kind of concessions otherwise. And I certainly sympathize with that. My colleague Betsy Klein at CNN had a story just this week about how long the administration has been talking about going into Venezuela. It's been months now where they've been talking about it over and over again, like, oh, yeah, we might do land strikes now, we might do land strikes now, we might go in there now. But it's always possible that they might have to make good on these threats or they might actually be serious about this. And that's a really significant thing. The last time we had an invasion of choice in one degree or another was 20 years ago. Didn't go very well. So this is a very significant thing. The other thing that I think is worth pointing to here, which I think you alluded to, Harry, which is the justifications that the administration has put forward for potentially going into Venezuela have changed over time. It wasn't just Susie Wiles suggesting that these boat strikes were connected to some kind of regime change. It was also about, you know, initially it was about drugs, and then it kind of morphed into, well, Venezuela is sending bad people to the United States. And now Trump, over the last week or so has talked a lot more about oil. They seized this oil tanker, and now Trump's talking about how Venezuela took over oil resources by nationalizing them, that the United States helped Venezuela set up and how that wasn't fair. So it's been just kind of a very evolving situation where Trump seems to kind of be trying out any number of different tactics here. But if you're building a case for war, you need to have a consistent narrative, and it needs to be based on the facts. And I think the administration is really creating problems for itself right now by not having any consistency in that messaging.
- [46:30]
D
In any kind of situation like this, there's opportunity costs. He has moved tremendous amounts of firepower into the Caribbean at the expense of maintaining fleet strength in other places. And I don't think that's gotten enough attention. You know, these are not infinite resources. We have a finite number of resources to basically protect our national interest and to help maintain the world order. And he's pulled them out so that he can, in fact, deal with a guy who's been there forever, whose country doesn't like him. I mean, I sat on the bridge and watched thousands of people come across into Colombia just to get food. I mean, you know, he's going to collapse under his own behavior at some point. And I think at the end of the day, Trump's really revealed what it is that he cares about. And I think it's oil. I've always thought it was oil.
- [47:25]
B
I mean, you remember when he was claiming that he had been against the Iraq invasion from day one, he would often say, but if we were gonna do it, we should have gotten the oil. He would say that over and over again. He was not subtle about this point. He felt that was a valid, if you're gonna do it, you should do it for the oil.
- [47:44]
D
And here's two examples. The reason why he was interested in Canada was minerals. Greenland is rich in minerals. He's basically wanting to colonize places that have resources that he thinks are essential. And I think if you're China and you saw the boats head to the Caribbean, you're like, whoa, hey, guess we're not number one threat.
- [48:08]
E
Yeah, I agree with what everyone else has said. I've been kind of checking on it from a Trump base point, right? Like, when does the base ultimately say, actually, you're going too far for us. Right. Is it the. The idea of war being in. In the conversation? Obviously, I was, you know, before the President gave his speech, I got a lot of different signals that were like, so is Trump going to announce a war in Venezuela from people allied with the White House because of what Tucker Carlson said? He said that, you know, his intel, which was wrong, might I add, was that Trump was going to announce that we were going to war with Venezuela in his year end speech. It did not have a lick of that in there. But, you know, so I think that people on the right are curious also as to where this goes. But I was talking to one source who's very close to the White House. And I was like, are you guys not concerned about these boat strikes? Right. We are using force in a way that is continued and that, you know, is getting closer and closer and closer. Obviously, now you have this blockade, you know, there could be some violence coming out of that. Right. Maduro may decide one day that he's going to retaliate. You know, you don't know what's going to happen. And the reason is not clear. And they basically told me that you're going to be very hard pressed to try to convince somebody that is within the MAGA base that trust the president to live up to his campaign promises that it is bad to strike narco terrorists, which is obviously what their first reason for striking these boats, alleged drug boats was. You're going to be hard pressed to find somebody who's against that. If it's about narco terrorists, his base is behind him. And I asked, well, what happens when that shifts into being about oil? And they didn't really have an answer for me. And so my question is, at what point do folks in the MAGA base who supported Trump initially in 2016 and 2015, because he was against forever wars, he said that these wars in the past were stupid, that using these resources were stupid. Something that Marco Rubio continues to recite saying that Donald Trump doesn't like war. So I think there is a question about where his base is and relatively kind of like, do they care about it? And so that's kind of one thing that I have been poking on, and I don't know if the answer is there yet. And it may just depend on what the administration continues to say.
- [50:30]
C
And what about your former colleague, Senator? I mean, as Aaron says, a war of choice on our part. Will there be no Republican voices to speak up or not or even quietly say, what the hell are you thinking about?
- [50:44]
D
Well, I think as long as these are boat strikes, I think Jasmine's absolutely right. You know, these are bad guys. You know, why do we care? They're peddling poison into our country. We should be glad that Trump is showing strength. I like to say, if this were a deterrent, why are we still blowing up boats? I mean, you know, why have people continued to, you know, make the trip? But I think that there will be a lot of pushback if he tries to initiate a land war in Venezuela and from where. And it won't be just Rand Paul from members. And, you know, the authorized use of military force, which should have been amended a long time ago, has been over utilized as Kind of an emergency measure. I think it will get a scrubbing, and I think a lot of people will say, that's enough. And the reason why I say that is because right track, wrong track numbers are bad for Trump. People don't see him as the end all and be all. I think mega. I was in Iowa watching the Iowa caucuses when Nikki Haley was running against Trump. And I watched veteran after veteran at these individual caucus meetings talk about forever wars that Trump doesn't believe in forever wars. And that's a very powerful, you know, maybe not overwhelming, but it is a big part of the MAGA base is stay home, take care of business at home, America first. And now we see all of this interaction by the administration, by Trump in trying to engage in international, and that's not what they bought. They bought somebody who was supposed to, you know, go home and lower prices, and that's not what they're seeing.
- [52:31]
C
And if I could just add a lawyer's point here, it really matters in terms of legality under law of war, why we're doing it. So there's this OLC memo that we haven't seen. But all speculation is there's some kinds of facts about how they're using the drugs to make war on us. If it turns out it's regime change that's going to, so to speak, blow the theory out of the water. And, you know, not to mention that the facts that the administration supplied for this memo are all about that. So it will make, I think, the coming scandal over, you know, sort of torture memo part two, over the legal justification. Keener, if they don't even, can't even say why they're doing it.
- [53:19]
B
To Jasmine and to Senator Heitkamp's point about how this would be received with the president's base. When Trump struck the Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this year, it was something that initially kind of divided maga. You saw the kind of Tulsi Gabbard wing of the party, to the extent that exists, not really on board with this ahead of time. And then afterwards, the poll suggested that pretty much everybody was like, yeah, that's fine. I think there was a CNN poll that showed like 8 in 10 Republicans approved of the strikes in Iran. But if you look a little bit closer, it was less than half of Republicans that strongly approved of those strikes, which I was really, I thought was really telling at the time. Like, they were like, yeah, that's fine, but they weren't really gung ho about it. And then I think if you're talking about something that's much further than strikes on a nuclear facility where you do it and you get out, which is a land invasion of Venezuela. That's a much tougher sell to that MAGA base. And you're also talking about a time in which we're seeing the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene coming out and kind of drawing a line between MAGA and America First. She's saying she's America first, not so much MAGA anymore. There is kind of this environment where it's hard to believe that this kind of thing would go over well, at least with a large portion of the MAGA base. And that's not what Trump needs right now. Right now, he cannot alienate his base any more than he already has, because we're seeing the cracks in it, because we're seeing what we saw with the Indiana State Senate not going along with what Trump wanted them to do on redistricting, which was a real affront to Trump. I just think it's a bridge too far for Trump right now to do this, given where he's at politically. And so I'd be surprised if the administration did it. Of course, if Trump decides he wants to do something, he doesn't always worry too much about the politics of it.
- [55:13]
E
Yeah, I would just say, I think the White House knows that. Yeah, the White House knows that. It would be too far for a lot of people in their base. And so, again, if they did it, I mean, it would be a little bit. I mean, not just going to war, not getting authorization, but, like, just doing it against the will of his base would be shocking. But the folks in the White House, you know, I think that's why you hear Caroline Levitt say, we're not going to war. That's why you hear folks saying, we're not going to war. Of course, Donald Trump says we're not going to rule it out because his theory of the case is, why not be a madman? They're never going to be able to track what I do, but I think that they know very well about what will not be tolerated by the base. And I guess the ultimate question is, do they care?
- [55:53]
C
To be continued. I just want to point out a theme that's come through all of these and all of you have raised is just where they are now with their very low numbers and how, if at all, it kind of limits their choices going forward. Great conversation. Thank you so much. We only have a minute left for our final feature. Five words or fewer. We take a question we each have to answer in five words or fewer. And this departs from Trump's decision to rename the Kennedy center the Kennedy Trump Center. And the question is, what's he going to rename next? 5 words or fewer.
- [56:28]
D
I'll go first. He's going to rename the U.S. capitol building after himself because he owns the majority over there anyway.
- [56:37]
E
Okay, mine is Donald J. Trump, Federal.
- [56:39]
B
Reserve I was going to go with World cup, courtesy of Trump.
- [56:45]
D
We're all really good and I'll say.
- [56:48]
C
US Constitution Buy Trump trademark thank you so much Aaron, Senator Heitkamp and Jasmine. And thank you very much listeners for tuning in to Talking Feds. If you like what you've heard, please tell a friend to subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts or wherever they get their podcasts. And please take a moment to rate and review the show. You can also subscribe to us on YouTube, where we are posting full episodes and my daily takes on top legal stories. Check us out as well on substack@harrylittman.substack.com where I'll be posting two or three bulletins a week breaking down the various threats to constitutional norms and the rule of law. And Talking Feds has joined forces with the Contrarian. I'm a founding contributor of this bold new media venture, committed to reviving the diversity of opinion that feels increasingly rare in today's news landscape, where legacy media seems to be tacking toward Trump for business reasons rather than editorial ones. Rest assured, we're still the same scrappy independent podcast you've come to know and trust just now linked up with an ambitious project designed for this pivotal moment in our nation's legal and political discourse. Find out more@contrarian.substack.com thanks for tuning in. And don't worry, as long as you need answers, the Feds will keep talking. Talking Feds is produced by Luke Cregan and Katie Upshaw, associate producer Becca Haveian, sound Engineering by Matt McArdle, Rosie Dawn Griffin, David Lieberman, Hamsa Mahadranathan, Emma Maynard and Hallie Necker are our contributing writers. Production assistants by Morgan Chisholm and Akshaysh Turbailu. Our editorial interns are Bridget Ryan and Troy Neville. Our music, as ever, is by the Amazing Philip Glass. Talking Feds is a production of Delito llc.
- [59:03]
E
See.
- [59:03]
C
I'm Harry Littman. Talk to you later.
- [59:21]
H
The holidays mean more travel, more shopping, more time online, and more personal info in more places that could expose you more to identity theft. But LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, our US based restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Don't face drained accounts, fraudulent loans or financial losses alone. Get more holiday fun and less holiday worry with LifeLock. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com podcast terms apply.