← The Briefing with Jen Psaki
The Briefing with Jen Psaki
Trump fails to stop Epstein bill as his political grip slips and sycophants fall away
00:41:21
Jen Psaki reports on breaking news that Donald Trump has signed the Epstein Transparency Act after House Speaker (and Trump sycophant) Mike Johnson failed to keep Congress inert against Trump's deepening political unpopularity. Even devoted lackey Pam Bondi may not be able to keep the Epstein files from the public any longer.
Loading summary
Transcript99 lines
- [00:00]
Host
Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're.
- [00:03]
Reporter/Analyst
Not sure where to start.
- [00:04]
Host
Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin or what that.
- [00:10]
Reporter/Analyst
Clunking sound from your dryer is. With Thumbtack, you don't have to be.
- [00:13]
Host
A home pro, you just have to hire one.
- [00:15]
Reporter/Analyst
You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app.
- [00:19]
Commercial/Ad Voice
Download Today at Maurices, we're all about great jeans. You know, the ones that fit you just right, the ones that simply make you feel good because you don't just wear jeans, you live in them. Find great jeans starting at 2990 in.
- [00:33]
Reporter/Analyst
Stores and@marisas.com the news just came. Just came. Just as you would expect in a post on Truth Social. This is a very long Truth Social post. And halfway down a long rambling screed basically about Democrats. Donald Trump announced tonight that he has signed the bill to release the Epstein files into law. And as much as Trump wants to make it seem like this was his secret three dimensional chess plan all along, the the fact of the matter is this is a failure for him. Trump completely failed at his repeated attempts to make this story go away by a million times. He tried to make it go away. He fought this so hard and for so long. And tonight he did something that he really did not want to do. And to really understand how we arrived at this moment, to really understand the corner he has backed himself into, I just want to go back for a moment to where this all started. Because it was less than five weeks into Trump's second term when Trump's newly appointed attorney general, Pam Bondi, went on Fox News and said this. One of the things that you alluded.
- [01:44]
Host
To, and this is something Donald Trump has talked about, the DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that really happen?
- [01:53]
Reporter/Analyst
It's sitting on my desk right now to review. I mean, that was February 21st, and Pam Bondi, without any prompting from Democrats or Epstein survivors, it seemed, told the world that she had the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients, that it was sitting on her desk. And those comments got MAGA pretty excited. I mean, after all, they had made the releasing of the Epstein files a core demand of their entire movement. And now Pam Bondi was saying, I've got them. Get ready, everyone. I'm going to release them. I'm reviewing them on my desk. Now here's where it gets hairy for the attorney General, because within a week of that Surprise announcement. Pam Bondi was scrambling to release something, anything, that she could call the Epstein files. And that was how we got to this magical moment. Pam Bondi gathering a bunch of MAGA Internet celebrities in Washington and handing them big old binders labeled Epstein Files Phase one. And once again, the MAGA movement let themselves get super, super excited. I mean, finally they were going to see what was in the Epstein files. It was all in the big binders. It all seemed so official. That was until they actually opened those binders.
- [03:08]
Host
The Attorney General, you recall last night.
- [03:10]
Guest/Expert
Called it breaking news.
- [03:11]
Reporter/Analyst
She promised that we would get the Epstein files today.
- [03:14]
Host
And while that turned out technically to be true, what we've seen so far, critics have argued tonight really hasn't lived up to the dramatic billing. Now, we began the day with somewhat high expectation, having seen some influencers with.
- [03:28]
Reporter/Analyst
So called Epstein file folders.
- [03:30]
Host
But that began to fizzle just a bit because we really didn't get a lot of new information.
- [03:36]
Reporter/Analyst
Ouch. And it wasn't just Fox News who was caught off guard by the announcement. I mean, ABC News reported at the time, quote, bondi and her team did not inform White House officials in advance that she planned to distribute the binders. And the move ruffled feathers among those closest to President Donald Trump. Why? Well, probably because she made a huge thing out of something they did not want to be, a huge thing. And so Pam Body tried to just put the whole thing to bed. She released a two page memo declaring that despite her own public pronouncement, there was no client list, there was no one else to charge in relation to Epstein's crimes, and that no further disclosure of any Epstein files was warranted. All of which she was trying to end this. But all of that stoked more outrage from Trump's base and from everyone who wanted these files released. And it just increased the spotlight on the calls to release the files. It helped prompt the investigation Stirbird by House Democrats. The public campaign by Epstein survivors got a lot more warranted attention. The bipartisan discharge petition happened. Trump scrambled then to try and stop that. All of which culminated in last night's overwhelming vote to order these files released. And now, after suffering that massive defeat, Trump's last line of defense on this issue seems to now be, once again, Pam Bondi. I mean, according to the bill that we were waiting, we were waiting for Donald Trump to sign, the Attorney General can continue to withhold any Epstein files that are part of an ongoing investigation, which is a very normal thing, except it depends on who is applying that standard and until recently, there were no ongoing investigations in this case. They closed them. But last week, Donald Trump, perhaps when he saw the writing on the wall here, he suddenly demanded that his Attorney general open a new investigation into several Democrats with known ties to Jeffrey Epstein. And even though Pam Bondi had just confidently declared in that two page memo that there was no one left to investigate, it took her just 217 minutes, to be exact, from when Trump made that public demand to announce that actually she would open a new investigation after all. And today, Pambani was asked about that very sudden reversal.
- [05:49]
Host
Madam Attorney General, the DOJ statement earlier this year saying that the files would not release mentioned the fact that the review of the documents and the evidence did not suggest that any additional investigation of third parties was warranted. What changed since then that you launched this investigation?
- [06:10]
Reporter/Analyst
Information that has come. Information. There's information that. New information.
- [06:16]
Guest/Expert
Additional information.
- [06:19]
Reporter/Analyst
Information. New information. So much information. Did I mention the information again? Now we know why Kash Patel looked under duress during that whole video. I think it's pretty clear. But again, the time that elapsed between Trump demanding this new investigation and Pam Bondi signing off on it was roughly the length of a Martin Scorsese movie. Just to give you a sense, I mean, how much new information could she possibly have gathered in that period of time? Now, during that same press conference, Pambani declined to rule out withholding more Epstein documents because of that investigation. So this is definitely a place to keep a very close eye on over the coming days, I will be for sure. But if Trump is once again relying on Pam Bondi and the Justice Department to save him from releasing these files, I don't think he should start getting his hopes up there. Because in the months since Pambani first bungled the Epstein file's release, her DOJ has not gotten any better at carrying out Trump's wishes. If anything, somehow they have gotten worse. I mean, take for instance, the prosecution of Trump rival James Comey. There are few people Trump wanted to see prosecuted more than the former FBI director. And it was always going to be a challenge given the flimsy allegations against him. But that hasn't stopped Pam Bondi's DOJ from completely screwing up their management of nearly every detail around this case. I mean, today in court, Lindsey Halligan, the Pam Bondi appointee in charge of that case, admitted to making a huge mistake that could possibly end up getting this case thrown out entirely. Halligan never actually presented the final indictment against Comey to the full grand jury, only Two grand jurors reviewed the final indictment, and Comey's legal team is arguing that means all the charges brought against James Comey could be invalid. Now, we're going to dig more into that a little bit later in the hour. The former top DOJ prosecutor. But this isn't exactly a one off. I mean, that's the point. The prosecution of Trump's other foes isn't going much better either in the mortgage fraud case against Trump's other foe, one of the other foes, I should say. New York Attorney General Letitia James. A new court filing this week revealed that senior fraud investigators in the Trump administration found no evidence that Tish James had actually committed any mortgage fraud. Which isn't surprising at all considering Lindsay Halligan landed her job in large part because her predecessor was unwilling to move forward on the case against Comey and James due to insufficient evidence. But this has never been about allowing great legal minds to guide prosecutions. Obviously not. It's about finding a warm body willing to act on the retribution campaign against the people Trump perceives to be his enemies. That's what it's about. But Pam Bondi's DOJ is still managing to screw it up. So, yeah, they are apparently willing to lie for him and do whatever they can to carry out his wishes, but they are not very good at it. And right now, they're kind of all Trump's got because frankly, he's running out of political allies at a faster pace than we have ever seen before. I mean, just yesterday, every single Republican Congress, except one. Clay Higgins, I'm looking at you, voted against him. On releasing the Epstein files, Marjorie Taylor Greene, once one of his closest allies in Congress, has now been publicly castigating him. She did yesterday, too. Over in the Senate, Trump ally John Thune is resisting Trump's demand to get rid of the filibuster. And Trump isn't just losing reliable buddies here in Washington. Let's go around the country, shall we? I mean, in Indiana, Republicans in the state legislature just rejected Trump's months long lobbying campaign to try and redraw that state's congressional maps. In Texas, Republicans are trying to defend their gerrymandered maps by throwing Trump's Justice Department under the bus. So the attorneys for the Texas Attorney general even went so far as to call the DOJ's legal arguments, quote, legally unsound, baseless, erroneous, ham fisted, and a mess. How do you really feel? I mean, everywhere you look, there are members of Trump's own party waking up and realizing that being a supplicant comes with a lot of headaches and very few perks. Even Trump's allies in the manosphere are turning on him.
- [10:28]
Host
This is the end of the Trump administration. This is the beginning of the lame duck presidency. It's obvious to everyone, even his most ardent, ardent supporters show up to the White House like Laura Ingram, and she's kind of shocked on what the hell's going on. I heard there's no files. I heard it's a hoax.
- [10:44]
Guest/Expert
And then all of a sudden he's.
- [10:45]
Host
Going to release the files. Well, I thought there was no files, man. He wants an investigation. Now listen, like, what is going on?
- [10:51]
Guest/Expert
They were making like, deportation hype videos with trap beats and shit.
- [10:54]
Reporter/Analyst
And I was like, what are we doing?
- [10:55]
Guest/Expert
That's.
- [10:56]
Reporter/Analyst
I'm saying everything is turned into, like, the wwe. I mean, those were some of his staunchest defenders. Some of them were. Doesn't take a political genius to figure out why Trump's allies are suddenly thinking twice about coming to his defense. A new Reuters Ipsos poll out today finds that voters disapprove of Trump's job performance by a 22 point margin. 22 points. That same poll finds voters disapprove of his handling of the economy by a 24 point margin. On immigration, the thing, the issue that is supposed to be his signature issue, voters disapprove of Trump by a 10 point margin. And on his handling of the Epstein files, voters disapproved by a whopping 39 point margin. Every day, Trump seems to get more and more unpopular, more politically isolated, and more reliant on the handful of sycophants he has left who are still willing to abuse their power on his behalf. So Donald Trump may be feeling kind of like a loner tonight. I mean, his political allies are deserting him, his poll numbers are tanking, and tonight he was forced to sign a bill to release the Epstein files, which I would note he did. Without a press pool there, it seems he's in a corner tonight, weaker than he's ever been. And that raises some important questions, like what lengths could he go to to try to get himself out of this mess? Because, you know, he's thinking about it. Well, will he try to get his incompetent stooges at the Justice Department to do now that his bill has been signed into law? And perhaps most importantly, how do Democrats plan to keep the pressure on here? What can they do? Well, I have the perfect person to ask. Senator Amy Klobuchar is a member of the Judiciary Committee which oversees the Justice Department. And she joins me here in just 90 seconds.
- [12:43]
Commercial/Ad Voice
At Maurices. We're all about great jeans.
- [12:45]
Reporter/Analyst
You know, the ones that fit you.
- [12:47]
Commercial/Ad Voice
Just right, the ones that go from work days to weekends and everywhere in between.
- [12:52]
Reporter/Analyst
The ones that simply make you feel.
- [12:55]
Commercial/Ad Voice
Good because you don't just wear jeans, you live in them. With 25 sizes, five lengths and six denim brands, you've got options and fit experts in every store. To make jean shopping easier, find great jeans stores starting at $29.90 in stores.
- [13:11]
Reporter/Analyst
And@Marisa'S.Com with TikTok ads, our revenue went up $10 million year over year during back to school season. Penn Foster is online education. TikTok is great because the reach is incredible for finding a lot of different types of audiences on the platform. Creator content at scale allowed us to easily develop and distribute creator led ads. Our return on ad spend for TikTok is 21% higher than the next best channel. Start growing your business today.
- [13:38]
Host
Head over to get started.TikTok.com TikTokads I've.
- [13:43]
Commercial/Ad Voice
Never felt like this before. It's like you just get me. I feel like my true self with you. Does that sound crazy? And it doesn't hurt that you're gorgeous?
- [13:57]
Reporter/Analyst
Okay, that's it.
- [13:58]
Commercial/Ad Voice
I'm taking you home with me.
- [14:01]
Reporter/Analyst
I mean, you can't find shoes this good just anywhere. Find a shoe for every you from brands you love like Birkenstock, Nike, Adidas.
- [14:09]
Commercial/Ad Voice
And more at your DSW store or dsw.com.
- [14:21]
Reporter/Analyst
As promised. Joining me now is Senator Amy Klobuchar, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees Trump's Justice Department. So I just outlined what's happened to date and also what we saw from Attorney General Pam Bondi just today. We've seen some shenanigans over the last couple of months, but this bill is now signed. I like to think you and your colleagues on the Judiciary Committee are much smarter than the people who were in the Department of Justice. What are you worried about here in terms of how they could apply the redactions?
- [14:51]
Guest/Expert
Well, what I'm worried about is what happened from the very beginning. Trump, his supporters were promised that these were going to be released. And then they turned, they said, no, no, here's a little file we're giving you now. Then there was an outcry. As you know, the bipartisan came out, got this done. The Senate, no choice. Senator Schumer last night just said, I'm going forward. If you want to object, good luck. They didn't object. And then we were able to get this. So what's happening now? Does it really surprise you that all of a sudden Pam Bonney pops up again and says, you know what, now we're doing an investigation. Well, to me that's like a dog whistle for, hey, we're going to keep some of these secrets still. And all these new investigations we're doing that we weren't doing before. The best way at this point. And the victims have said this clearly. One of the victims actually said the best way. 16 years old. Sharing the Epstein files does not cause new trauma for me. What causes real difficulty is the persistent secrecy around the case. So if they just release these after all these years, basically of hiding them, then we'll know what happened.
- [15:59]
Reporter/Analyst
No question. And I have had the honor of speaking to a number of these survivors. They're incredible. They've been advocating for years and it's really about them. Let me play you something. You've probably seen this, but something. Pam Bondi took some questions at a press conference today. So let's just play that because I want to talk about that too.
- [16:17]
Commercial/Ad Voice
Is the department seeking information perhaps from the EPSTEIN ESTATE Because Mr. Blanche did not have that information when he interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell. What new information? And would you limit the new investigation to just those named persons that the President talked about or is this a broad open ended investigation?
- [16:36]
Reporter/Analyst
I would refer to the Deputy Attorney General's post that he put out on X. And we will, we're not going to.
- [16:44]
Guest/Expert
Say anything else on that because now.
- [16:46]
Reporter/Analyst
It is a pending investigation in the.
- [16:48]
Guest/Expert
Southern District of New York.
- [16:51]
Reporter/Analyst
I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but that kind of screams BS to me. You are one. What do you, what do you make of what her argument was there?
- [16:58]
Guest/Expert
I mean this is not a coincidence that just when the President finds out there's enough votes to override his veto after he's been called calling Republicans in the House and trying to get them off the discharge petition, she suddenly comes up with this investigation. So I think we should have more transparency, not less. That's why Senator Wyden and others have been trying to get these documents from Treasury. We should get the financial documents because this is how this money has moved around. I've prosecuted more local sex trafficking cases before and this money, it gets moved around, around the world and they want to try to get that information. We do. And the House oversight bipartisan again is now going directly to banks to find out who is paying Epstein Howe. So that's one side of this, that we need to get the information.
- [17:46]
Reporter/Analyst
This is a very important side.
- [17:47]
Guest/Expert
Yes, very important. And the other side is, let's get the documents that justice has. Why are we just getting documents from the estate and those documents that we have mention Trump's name 1600 times and.
- [17:59]
Reporter/Analyst
Why wouldn't they want them to? That seems like an easy question for the Attorney General to answer. Let me ask you, though, just like you putting your lawyer hat on, which always lives with you, I mean, if the SDNY investigation, which is the one they opened last week, to your point, if that expands and acts as kind of a roadblock in releasing these files, you had a voted by unanimous consent in the Senate, if the Senate wanted to act on pressing them, what could Congress do about it?
- [18:26]
Guest/Expert
They can go back and press them. They can say, no, that's not enough. We can pass more, even targeted resolutions, because there was an exception in the one that the House drafted for, you know, investigations. I think there's all kinds of things we could do because I don't think people are going to tolerate this for one second. Not those Republicans who have stood up and said, now we're finally going to get the documents, not the victims. You know, these incredible stories of 16 year olds who were told, hey, your mom cancer, and I'm going to help you, but you have to abide by my wishes by Jeffrey Epstein. They're not going to be quiet when this happens. So I just think there's just too much of a public outcry for them to hide behind some kind of a faux investigation so they could release the files and continue their investigation. They could get those treasury documents out there and we could go back at it again. And will, with these treasury documents, if they don't release it, how will you know?
- [19:24]
Reporter/Analyst
This is a question I feel like my college text chain asked me. Yeah, how will you know? If they have redacted so many things from the documents, as a committee reviewing these documents before they go to the public, how will you know and look at it and say, whoa, there's way too many redactions here?
- [19:39]
Guest/Expert
Because redactions tend to be people's names, their dates of birth, things that would define the person. But so many times the whole gist of the documents are there. And here I'm not talking about perpetrators, I'm talking about victims have a right to not have their name out there. And so that would be very simple to do. So you expect redactions in any kind of release. And this kind of release is all about public trust building trust but in this case, if they start redacting whole the allegations, the names of perpetrators that are not the names of victims, you're going to be able to figure it out pretty quickly.
- [20:15]
Reporter/Analyst
And members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who are all experts on this sort of thing, could look at it and go back to them and say, this.
- [20:22]
Guest/Expert
Is not enough completely. And they can do it in the House, they can do it in the Senate. And unlike several of these things that they have just been following rubber stamping Donald Trump, our colleagues, our Republican colleagues on this front have been pretty outspoken.
- [20:36]
Reporter/Analyst
You've been obviously, you have seen the widening fractures. You've been around for the MAGA movement from the beginning and before then, it seems to me that some of these fractures seem to be widening. And they're not just about the Epstein files. They're about tariffs. They're about a range of issues. Do you see it as a widening fracture in comparison to what you've seen over the past 10 years?
- [20:58]
Guest/Expert
I do. And a lot of it's reflected in what just happened in the last election just a few weeks ago, where a number of, when you look at this, Independents, moderate Republicans said enough is enough. And slowly but surely we get one more Republican, one more Republican, and we passed the bill on repealing the tariffs on Canada, on Brazil, on all the tariffs. You look at what happened in some of these states when they were faced with these push Indiana on the redistricting front and the like, they said, wait a minute, we're not going to do this. So this is, to me, it's not exactly like a big dramatic moment like Watergate where people stood up bravely or that's not even like a lot of the lying people have done, including Republican prosecutors like Hagan Scott. And I will never forget what he said when he said, no, I'm not going to dismiss the cases against Eric Adams. And he literally said, you may find a fool or a coward to file that motion, but it was never going to be me. So we wanted our colleagues to say this early on, but the fact that some of them are standing up right now on these files, when you have sex trafficking victims right in front of you, that's good. And when they stood up on the tariffs, just a few of them, that's good. But we need much more of that. And the voters are demanding it, no question.
- [22:13]
Reporter/Analyst
And it's very, I think, encouraging to hear from you that you think a number of people might stick by this if the redactions and what they're not releasing is look at the vote. Yeah, it's very clear. It's pretty clear.
- [22:26]
Guest/Expert
Over one person. No objections in the Senate. I don't think you can just have a Pam bounding moment where Trump says, I want this, I want that, and they just pretend it went away. That's not going to happen here.
- [22:37]
Reporter/Analyst
Well, Senator Amy Klobuchar, I'm glad you know more about the law than I think a lot of people around Trump do right now. But thank you so much for being here with me tonight. Okay. Coming up with Donald Trump signing the Epstein files bill into law. Well, ball is now in the hands of his, as I've been saying, wildly incompetent, wildly sycophantic Justice Department. Not everybody, but a lot of people at the top. And on the same day he signed that bill into law, we got a shocking new example of just how incompetent and sycophantic this Justice Department is. I'll talk about all of that breaking news with a former top prosecutor at DOJ after a very quick break.
- [23:19]
Commercial/Ad Voice
At Maurices. We're all about great jeans. You know, the ones that fit you just right, the ones that simply make you feel good because you don't just wear jeans, you live in them. Find great jeans starting at 29.90 in.
- [23:32]
Reporter/Analyst
Stores and at Marisa's.com Think advertising on.
- [23:35]
Host
TikTok isn't for your business?
- [23:36]
Reporter/Analyst
Think again. With TikTok ads, we went from 250, 000 downloads to over a million downloads in the less than a year.
- [23:42]
Commercial/Ad Voice
I'm Eve, I'm Anam and we're the co founders of Alinea.
- [23:45]
Reporter/Analyst
Alinea Invest is an investing app for Gen z.
- [23:48]
Commercial/Ad Voice
We run 50 new ads per week with three variations thanks to TikTok Smart plus campaigns. If you're not advertising on TikTok, you're missing out.
- [23:57]
Host
Drive more app downloads only on TikTok. Head over to get started.TikTok.com TikTokads Ever.
- [24:04]
Commercial/Ad Voice
Wonder why so many people regain weight after stopping a GLP1 up to 40% of the weight lost can come from lean muscle. This weakens the body, slows metabolism and makes it easier to put the pounds back on, creating a cycle of dependency. Prolon's five day Fasting mimicking diet offers a drug free way to maintain results and support long term metabolic health when paired with proper diet and exercise. In just five days, it activates fasting pathways to burn fat, protect muscle and rejuvenate cells, all while letting you enjoy real food. Get 25% off plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe@prolonlife.com PandoraPromo these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. See site for details.
- [24:55]
Reporter/Analyst
Now that Donald Trump has signed the law directing the release of the Epstein files, what happens next is in the hands of the Justice Department, as I was just discussing with Senator Amy Klobuchar. And so I think it's worth telling you about what the Justice Department looks like right now. I mean, in the nearly 10 months since Trump was sworn in, he and his top officials have transformed the nation's top law enforcement agency into essentially his own personal law firm. So far, 200 career attorneys have been fired from the department and thousands more have resigned. That obviously comes with a cost. In a new, expansive New York Times Magazine piece detailing the chaos inside the Justice Department since Trump swearing in, one former federal prosecutor called what's happening a brain drain. Clearly, maybe the Justice Department survives but loses all the experts, they went on to say. So the experts are all gone. Who is left at the Department of Justice? Well, looks to be people like Lindsey Halligan, Trump's current Acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District, whose prior experience is not as a prosecutor, but a third runner up beauty pageant contestant turned insurance lawyer turned Trump personal attorney. Now, before being picked for her current role, Halligan was helping the Trump White House with removing improper ideology from the Smithsonian. Literally, that was her job, which according to her, seems to include museums teaching people too much about the horrors of slavery. That's literally what her job was. Now, you may not be surprised to learn that all of Halligan's inexperience is showing at her new job. Within days of starting work, she went before a grand jury to get them to indict former FBI Director James Comey, something her predecessor, who was an experienced career prosecutor, was unwilling to do because there was not enough evidence. But she was willing. And when she went before a grand jury, she made a bunch of mistakes, most notably handing the judge two different copies of the indictment and then claiming she didn't know where one of those copies came from and that she hadn't seen it. Then the judge pointed out to her that it had her signature on it. Not a great start. And that was just the first of a series of issues that could ultimately jeopardize the Comey prosecution, including possibly making funding fundamental misstatements of law to the grand jury. And as we learned just today, never showing the full grand jury the final indictment they were supposed to have Approved. That is a lot. I have someone great here to unpack it with me. Joining me now is Alexis Loeb. She's a former prosecutor at the Department of Justice, where she was the deputy chief of the January 6th Capitol siege section. Thank you so much, Alexis, for being here. I want to just read to you the New York Times description of what happened in the courtroom today, because most of us have not been in courtrooms like this. So we all read this like, what the heck? But I want to hear what you think. So they said the judge seemed stunned by the events and asked Ms. Halligan to stand up in court to answer questions. He asked her whether the entire grand jury had the opportunity to see the second indictment. She told him he had. She told him it had not. He thanked her and told her to sit down. Okay, so that's quite a description by the New York Times. Just put it in context here. Have you ever seen someone from the Justice Department make a mistake like this before?
- [28:03]
Commercial/Ad Voice
I think the issue here, Jen, is that we're looking at a whole constellation of mistakes. Is it possible that an inexperienced prosecutor could come into the grand jury and make a misstatement of law or have a grand jury vote not to indict on one count and not be sure to do what to do in that situation? Of course that's possible, but here you just have, at this point, issue after issue, compounding.
- [28:31]
Reporter/Analyst
No question about it. I mean, to your point, it's a series. This is not an isolated case. What happens today? Have you seen a case like this? I mean, first of all, everybody recommended, including her predecessor, against moving this forward. So that's quite telling. Her career prosecutor was very experienced. Have you seen a case like this unravel this quickly?
- [28:54]
Commercial/Ad Voice
No, Jen, I don't think I've seen this number of issues emerge altogether in such close proximity. I mean, it was just a couple of days ago that we got the order from the magistrate judge talking about issues like the agent who testified before the grand jury, potentially seeing privileged material, the potential misstatements of law before the grand jury, and then today, just the fundamental question of what indictment was presented to the grand jury in the first place. And. And I mean, there are more issues as well. So I think it is pretty stunning just the number of issues that have emerged in really just a few days.
- [29:33]
Reporter/Analyst
So Comey's lawyers are, of course, they've on several occasions asked them to kind of throw out this case. What do you think happens here?
- [29:42]
Commercial/Ad Voice
Judge Nakmanoff is a careful judge. And I think, first, I would Expect him to gather more information and give the defense access to more information. So tonight we've seen the government file its brief challenging the magistrate judge's findings. The defense will have a chance to respond to that. And Judge Nakhminoff today said he wasn't going to rule on the motions to dismiss for vindictive and selective prosecution. I'm not sure how he'll come out on those, but I wouldn't be surprised if as a first step, he gives the defense greater access to discovery, possibly even including a potential declination memo that today in court, the government wasn't prepared to acknowledge its potential existence.
- [30:33]
Reporter/Analyst
Yeah. So they may gain access to more information, which is an interesting thing. Let me ask you, I mean, I mentioned at the top that and a lot of people watching have been following this closely, as if we that that some of your former DOJ colleagues have called Trump's purge a brain drain on the department. It's incredibly sad to see and watch so many people worked for decades in that department, civil servants, people who are not political at all. I mean, from your perspective, as you look at this, help people understand how much talent and expertise may have been pushed out of the Department of Justice in just less than a year.
- [31:08]
Commercial/Ad Voice
I mean, it seems like you seen news of departures from all across the department, demotions, DOJ lawyers being reassigned to things like the Sanctuary City task force, even though their jobs have nothing to do with immigration. So you have seen this constant march of lawyers for the exits, both voluntarily and involuntarily. And what you saw here was a lawyer without a criminal background going into a grand jury by herself, which in and of itself is really quite unusual. Usually if it's a prosecutor's first time going into the grand jury, someone more experienced will go in there with them. So, I mean, I think trusting an indictment in a case of this magnitude with the pressure of the expiring statute of limitations to someone with no criminal experience, and it speaks to the absence perhaps of people around that attorney who were willing to or could step in and help. And it is just one example of what we're seeing across the Department of Justice. I mean, I do want to say that there are attorneys at the Department of Justice, career attorneys, who are still there and are still doing their job. So I don't want to suggest that everyone is like this, but this really is an example of a whole series of mistakes that could have been prevented if you had someone with more experience involved. And it really is notable that there wasn't anyone like that here and then prosecuting the case, you have to, you have assistant United States attorneys who aren't even from this district.
- [32:49]
Reporter/Analyst
Well, they had to find people willing to do it, as you know. Alexis Loeb, thank you so much for joining me. I really appreciate you bringing your legal expertise to us. Thank you so much.
- [32:59]
Commercial/Ad Voice
Thank you, Jenna.
- [32:59]
Reporter/Analyst
Okay. Up next, if you're wondering why Donald Trump has spent the last two days yucking it up with crown prince of Saudi Arabia, that guy, all you have to do is follow the money. We're back after a very quick break. For the second day in a row now, Donald Trump has given Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince, of course, of Saudi Arabia, the kind of welcome the United States typically reserves for our closest allies, like an ally we really, really, really love. I mean, first, Trump greeted the Saudi leader at the White House with a military flyover. Then he goofed around with them in the Oval Office like they were old friends, even creepily joking about being willing to shake his hand no matter where it has been, which also sounds unsanitary. Then Trump threw a lavish black Thai White House dinner in the crown prince's honor. And today, Trump and the crown prince co hosted a joint Saudi US Investment forum. It's kind of hard to see how Trump is treating the Saudi leader right now and not think about what Trump might be getting in return.
- [34:05]
Commercial/Ad Voice
Is it appropriate, Mr. President, for your.
- [34:07]
Reporter/Analyst
Family to be doing business in Saudi Arabia while you're president? Is that a conflict of interest? I have nothing to do with the family business. What my family does is fine. They do business all over. They've done very little with Saudi Arabia, actually. I'm sure they could do a lot. Now, Trump has quite a definition of very little business here, as he just described it. I mean, first of all, do you remember how after Trump left his first term, Saudi invested $2 billion into Trump's son in law's Jared Kushner's venture capital firm? Do you remember that just a few months ago they doubled down on that teaming up to take the video game company Electronic Arts public in a deal that is valued at $55 billion. Then there are the two real estate development projects the Trump Organization landed in Saudi Arabia just last December, just after Trump won a second term. Then there's the news from this week about how the Trump family business and a Saudi firm are developing a cryptocurrency funded 80 vill. The Maldives sounds lovely and very expensive. Then there's a New York Times scoop from earlier this week that the Trump Organization is in talks to bring a Trump branded property to a real estate project that the Saudi leader himself is overseeing in Saudi Arabia. A development that Trump himself toured during an official state visit just back in May. Then there's the news from just today that a Saudi backed company is teaming up with Trump's biggest campaign donor, Elon Musk, of course, to make a massive AI data center in Saudi Arabia. That is what Trump is calling very little business. And while Trump and his family are getting all that great business from the Saudi Crown Prince, Trump is offering him something incredibly valuable. You see, for years now, the Saudi leader has been a pariah, shunned around the world for his tyrannical rule and human rights abuses. The US has had to deal with him diplomatically, but has largely done so at arm's length, using his pariah status as leverage to push for broader diplomatic goals. But now Trump isn't just eagerly welcoming the Saudi leader back onto the global stage. He is using his position as president to essentially launder the Crown Prince's reputation. I'm very proud of the job he's done. What he's done is incredible in terms of human rights and everything else. I mean, of all the things Trump could call out, shouting out, Mohammed bin Salman's work on human rights issues is, well, it's crazy. I mean, back in 2023, the State Department published a report detailing just how many human rights violations were happening in Saudi Arabia under the Crown Prince's rule. It included credible reports of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, torture, life threatening prison conditions, arbitrary arrests, political prisoners, violence against journalists, religious oppression, political oppression, lack of free and fair elections. I literally could go on and on. And then of course, there's Jamal Khashoggi. Khashoggi was the American resident and of course, Washington Post journalist who US Intelligence agencies concluded Mohammed bin Salman directed to have murdered. U.S. intelligence agencies believe that bin Salman sent a 15 man team, including seven men from the Crown Prince's own personal protective detail, to ambush Khashoggi in the Saudi Embassy in Istanbul, kill him, kill him, and dismember his body with a bone saw. And to be clear, that was Bin Salman ordering the murder of a journalist because he didn't like what that journalist was reporting about his regime. That all used to be more than reason enough for the US to shun the Saudi leader. But now check out how Trump responded to this question in the Oval Office yesterday. Your Royal Highness, the US Intelligence concluded that you orchestrated the brutal murder of a journalist. 9, 11 families are furious that you are here in the Oval Office. Why should Americans trust who are you with? And the same to you, Mr. President. Now, who are you with? I'm with ABC News, sir. You're with who? ABC News, sir. Fake News. ABC Fake News. One of the worst. One of the worst in the business. You're mentioning somebody that was extremely controversial. A lot of people didn't like that gentleman that you're talking about. Whether you like him or didn't like him, things happen. But he knew nothing about it, and we can leave it at that. You don't have to embarrass our guests by asking a question like that. That's right. Trump responded to a question about an autocrat murdering a journalist by calling the reporter fake news and essentially defending the autocrats sitting next to him. Now, as concerning as Trump's lovey dovey relationship with Mohammed bin Salman already is on the surface, last night on the House floor, Democratic Congressman Eugene Vindman said that what Trump says to the Saudi leader behind closed doors is even more concerning. Vindman says that during his time on Trump's White House National Security Council, he reviewed a call between Trump and bin Salman after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. He said that what he heard was shocking and that there are tapes. Congressman Eugene Vindman joins me live here in just a moment. One Democratic lawmaker is coming forward with an extraordinary allegation about Donald Trump's relationship with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. Congressman Eugene Vindman worked as a national security staffer during Trump's first term. And last night on the floor of the House, he made an explosive claim about a phone call between Trump and the crown prince during Trump's first term.
- [39:20]
Host
After the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, I reviewed a call between the President and the Saudi crown prince. The American people and the Khashoggi family deserve to know what was said on that call. If history is any guide, the receipts will be shocking.
- [39:37]
Reporter/Analyst
Joining us now is Congressman Eugene Vindman, a Democrat from Virginia and former career national security staffer in the first Trump White House. He knows what to call out when it doesn't feel on the level, as my mother would say. So you talked about this on the House floor last night. I know you have limitations on what you can describe because this call is still classified at this point. What can you tell us about this call?
- [40:01]
Host
Well, look, this was a call that took place with MBS Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, after the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, who was a Washington Post reporter, a legal Resident of Virginia and the president called Mohammed bin Salman. And obviously my interpretation of that call. There were two calls that were particularly concerning from the first Trump administration, and one of them was the Ukraine call. And as we all know, that resulted in President Trump's impeachment. And this one, in my opinion, was as shocking as that.
- [40:46]
Reporter/Analyst
And you said that. I heard you say earlier today that the family deserves to know what was on that call. Of course they do. Any details? Does that mean there's more details about the events around his murder on the call, or is it more about Trump's acknowledgment of what actually happened that his intel community concluded?
- [41:06]
Host
Well, look, what the president said in the meeting with MBS in the White House is completely, completely counterfactual. It's contrary to the reports of the intel community that determined with high confidence that this was an order of a kill or capture of Jamal Khashoggi. And there has never really been a real accountability for this. And so the widow deserves accountability and the American people deserve transparency.
- [41:36]
Reporter/Analyst
There was a whole pressure campaign that led to the release of the call transcript with Zelenskyy. It doesn't seem like the White House is going to hand this plan hero pressure campaign to kind of force them, to kind of force them to release it.
- [41:49]
Host
Look, the president invited MBS to the White House, gave him a very warm reception. And we have to deal with foreign leaders, sometimes unsavory leaders all the time. What we can't do is engage in whitewashing and cover up for brutal humanitarian abuses. And so I think what we need to do is ensure that the spotlight remains on, frankly, what is shocking conduct. We know that the president went in 2020 and told Bob Woodward that this was, that he was, he saved MBSs, those that terminology that he used. And so there's a quid somewhere there. And then in your previous segment, you talked about all of the benefits that, that the president and his family have reaped over the years. I mean, that sounds like a quo to me as well.
- [42:43]
Reporter/Analyst
Yeah, I think that's a big part of it. Follow the money. And there's lots of money the Trump family is making in Saudi Arabia. You have. I mean, it's significant that you've gone public with the existence of the transcript and the fact that you reviewed it. And you also, as a member of Congress, you know, you've been using the speech and debate clause to speak more freely than you normally could. Could. What stops you from telling everybody what's in there?
- [43:07]
Host
Well, look, the president had a conversation with another foreign leader. That document remains classified. The president released a document, a similar document with another foreign leader that was obviously not perfect in any sense. And he could do the same thing. He can be transparent. If the president has nothing to hide in this context, he can release that and the American people can decide for themselves if there's something wrong.
- [43:33]
Reporter/Analyst
Yeah, they can read it. Have you gotten any response from the White House?
- [43:37]
Host
There was a response from the White House and I've taken incoming from lackeys from the White House.
- [43:43]
Reporter/Analyst
What'd they say?
- [43:45]
Host
They called me some sort of disgruntled backbencher. You know, none of that is meaningful. The fact that they're responding means that this is something that they're concerned about, and they ought to be because the widow is demanding answers. I think Congress will be demanding answers in coming weeks and there needs to be transparency.
- [44:07]
Reporter/Analyst
And watching the last two days raises more questions as well. Thank you so much for being here. Really appreciate it. We've got to sneak in a very quick break, but Lawrence has the Democratic leader of Hakeem Jeffries standing by as prompter, has a lot to say. So don't go anywhere. We'll be right back. Okay. I've had such a blast on season two of my podcast, the Blueprint, talking Democratic Party politics and how Democrats win big again, that I decided why not? We made it one more special bonus episode with some of my favorite strategist friends. It's available right now exclusively for MSNow Premium subscribers. And you can also scan the code on your screen now to subscribe. That does it for me tonight. You can catch the show Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern on Ms. Now. And don't forget to follow the show on Blue sky, Instagram and TikTok holiday PSA from DSW. This is your reminder that shoes are a gift, literally. So unwrap something good, like boots that inspire your next big adventure, or cozy slippers that give you an excuse to stay in, or sneakers that feel like pure joy. Because shoes aren't just shoes, they're exactly what you wanted. Let us surprise you so you can surprise them. Find shoes that get you and everyone on your list at prices that get your budget at DSW stores or dsw.com.