Isaac Saul (11:56)
All right, first up, let's start with what the left is saying. The left views the Journal's story as plausible and suggests it could do significant political damage. Some argue Democrats should continue pressing for answers about Trump and Epstein's relationship. Others say the story is rightly animating both sides of the political spectrum. In the Guardian, Margaret Sullivan wrote, trump worked to kill a story about his friendship with Epstein. Now we know why. It's not just that the 50th birthday card he reportedly penned for the future convicted child sex offender is so damning in itself. It's not just that Trump has been denying a tight friendship with Epstein, who died in jail in 2019, for some time, and that this would clearly put the lie to that, sullivan said. No, there's another element, and a brutal one for the president. It's where the story was published in the Wall Street Journal, whose conservative opinion side has often backed him and whose news side has a reputation for ensuring that explosive stories are bulletproof when the paper has taken a big swing at exposing wrongdoing. Do you remember John Carreyrou's expose of the blood testing company Theranos by any chance? Their reporting holds up, sullivan wrote. Granted, Trump has had a lot of success in recent months in his various suits against big news organizations. This, I suspect, will be quite different. A lawsuit won't make this damning story go away, and I doubt that Trump really wants to put himself through legal discovery with all the ugliness that might be exposed. In Vox, Eric Levitz wrote, trump's relationship with Epstein is indisputably scandalous. The Democratic Party's decision to dedicate so much energy to promoting this controversy that might seem dubious. For one thing, Democrats ostensible outrage over the alleged suppression of the Epstein files is obviously hypocritical. After all, he died six years ago. A Democratic administration was in power from January 2021 through January 20th of this year, lovett said. Thus, by affirming the notion that incriminating Epstein files exist, Democrats risk perpetuating the idea that both parties are toxically corrupt, a form of cynicism that Trump has long exploited to excuse his shameless graft and malfeasance. But those worries are misguided. The Democrats decision to lean into the Epstein controversy is a political no brainer for several reasons. First, the incontrovertible facts about Trump's relationship with Epstein are unflattering and eyebrow raising, even though they are not incriminating, levitz wrote. Even if we put Trump's conspiracizing to one side, his claim that he doesn't understand why the Epstein case interests people still seems disingenuous. It seems clear, then, that Trump knows perfectly well why the Epstein case interests people. The fact that he now feels compelled to claim otherwise while begging his supporters to stop talking about the controversy seems rather odd and also like an indication that Democrats would be wise to keep attention focused on this matter. In Bloomberg, Matthew Iglesias argued bipartisan outrage over Epstein is just what America needs. This story differs from the more extreme Russiagate allegations against Trump or Trump's infamous charges that Barack Obama was secretly born in Kenya in that they are not narrowly partisan. As such, they are especially appealing to the kinds of people who are disengaged from politics and alienated from mainstream institutions. In other words, just the kinds of people who flocked to Trump's banner over the past decade, iglesias wrote. The conspiracists turning on Trump now are part of the more natural process of restoring balance to the political system. Democrats, especially Democrats who aren't socialists, need to relearn the habit of standing up for the little guy versus the establishment in ways that go beyond the disruptional tables of a tax bill. A core reason that Epstein conspiracy theories are so widespread is that the public is broadly cynical about the way rich people are treated by the state and the legal system, iglesias said. The kind of change that many people want is not necessarily dramatic policy change, but change in personnel, the elevation of outsiders uncorrupted by ties to the system, either the parties or the governments. Alright, that is it for what the left is saying. Which brings us to what the right is saying. The right is skeptical of the Journal's report, suggesting it mirrors past media attempts to take down Trump. Some criticize Democrats for exploiting the story for political gain. Others say the grand jury testimony shouldn't be unsealed and is unlikely to satisfy Trump's critics if it is. In the Federalist, Eddie Scarry said the report reeks of being a fake plan to implicate Trump. I have no idea whether the note is legitimate. We know Trump did have at least some semblance of a relationship with Epstein that goes back to the early 1990s, but so did a lot of people, scarry wrote. We also know that this all sounds almost exactly like another story involving the FBI and a newly discovered document that was damaging to the case of Paul Manafort and the Black Ledger. Recall that in August 2016, just after Trump secured the Republican nomination for president, the New York Times broke the story about allegations of secret foreign payments to demonstrate a link between Russia and Trump using Manafort's business dealings in Ukraine. This is the same FBI that has been handling the Epstein case. And so here we are. Another seedy book turns up out of nowhere to associate Trump with criminal conduct. What a coincidence, scary said. The two events are almost comically identical. An office space in Ukraine was pillaged by political activists, but what luck. A little paper book was eventually recovered. Oh my Inside is damaging information associated with Trump in 2025 as Trump set about quickly restructuring the executive branch of the federal government and attempting to hold corrupt Democrats accountable. Well, I'll be a leather bound book that makes him look like the dear friend of a notorious pedophile. In the Washington Examiner, Christopher Trimogli asked, why do Democrats suddenly care about Epstein? The Trump administration has botched the long promised release of Epstein related information, but Democrats acting as if they're the knights errant of Epstein's victims is the bigger scandal, trimougli wrote. Among the vociferous have been congressional Democrats who all of a sudden are interested in the villainous and disgraced sex trafficker. Their conspicuous silence excludes the period from January 20, 2021 to January 20, 2025. Merrick Garland was the attorney general appointed by Biden and ran the Justice Department. They had access to everything related to Epstein. Yet it appears that up until recently, the overwhelming majority of Democrats showed little if any interest in the Epstein files. That is, until the Trump administration walked back a campaign promise and created a public relations nightmare. With such an unforced era, it's shameful and speaks volumes about their vulture like tendencies. Once again, Democrats seek to exploit the tragedies of innocent people, in this case sexually trafficked minors solely for political gain, trimogli said. Their silence from when Biden was president and Garland was attorney general is the real indicator of how little they cared about Epstein. In national review, Andrew C. McCarthy wrote about the Epstein disclosure. Morass weary but indulgent of his MAGA base, President Trump yesterday directed Attorney General Bondi to seek the release of all grand jury testimony from the Epstein investigation. This is a double whammy. It is legally dubious and it won't satisfy the mob, McCarthy said. Grand jury proceedings are secret by law. There is no overarching public right to know what is uncovered in the criminal investigations. If the government actually formally accuses someone of crimes, such allegations and the relevant evidence become public. Absent secrecy, the presumption of innocence would be eradicated, I.e. people publicly identified as connected to a grand jury probe, including completely innocent people who were just witnesses or whose names randomly came up for some reason or would be assumed by the press and the public to be under suspicion of committing crimes, McCarthy wrote. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the grand jury testimony typically amounts to just a small fraction of the government's investigative file. Far more extensive are witness interviews conducted by law enforcement agents, evidence subpoenaed from various sources, and the fruits of search warrants. Alright, let's head over to Isaac for his take.
