Congressman Chris d'Aluzio (8:39)

So they hit Qatar, Saudi Arabia, uae, Bahrain, Kuwait. Nobody expected that. We were shocked. And yet the President says nobody knew.

Ron Reagan (8:52)

And my question is, did you tell him? Anybody want to answer that question?

Congressman Chris d'Aluzio (8:57)

They weren't supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East.

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (9:01)

Are you surprised that nobody briefed you

Congressman Pat Ryan (9:03)

ahead of time that that might be their retaliation?

Congressman Chris d'Aluzio (9:05)

Nobody? Nobody? No, no, no, no. The greatest experts, nobody thought they were

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (9:09)

going to hit the fact that Iran is going to strike other countries in the region. You know, we spent a lot on this. Why didn't they anticipate this and inform the President of those facts?

Congressman Chris d'Aluzio (9:20)

Unexpectedly, they started sending missiles to uae, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and elsewhere, and nobody thought they were going to. Were you equally surprised by that, Pete?

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (9:36)

Were you equally surprised by that, Pete? I love how he just throws him under the bus at any point, any opportunity. Of course, two intelligence officials told Reuters that Trump was briefed on the risk that Iran would attack Gulf countries. But somehow that warning didn't seem to sink in. Maybe it didn't make the highlight real. Maybe that's where we have to blame again. NBC News is reporting that those briefings are fueling concerns that Trump is not getting a complete picture of this war, which also may explain why he keeps saying things like this.

Congressman Chris d'Aluzio (10:07)

We've won. Let me tell you, we've won. You know, you never like to say too early, you won, we won. We won. The bet in the first hour, it was over. We've already won. In many ways, we've already won. Oh, I think we've won. You know, I don't like to say this. We've won this. This war has been won.

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (10:23)

I mean, you definitely like to say this. That. That's clear. We just played you saying it a million times. Trump says we've won. He said it over and over again, the war's over. Obviously, that's not true, but that's an idea you might have if your main source of information for this war is effectively an Instagram reel. There's so much evidence that Trump is out of touch with the reality of the situation. I mean, just yesterday we learned that Trump reportedly sent the Iranians a 15 point plan to end the war. He's repeatedly said that the Iranians are ready to make a deal. And he even boasted that the Iranians had sent him an expensive mystery present as a gesture of goodwill. He really liked that President talked about it a lot yesterday. But today, not only did Iran reject that 15 point peace deal, but they accused the U.S. of, quote, negotiating with itself. Sick burn there Iranians, I guess. And they said they had no intention of holding talks with the US and then they laid out five of their own demands for ending this war. Demands that are diametrically opposed to Trump's own terms for ending the war. Things like full sanctions relief, compensation for war damages, and total control of the Strait of Hormuz. According to Trump, the negotiations are going great. Now, we don't know if Iran will hold to those demands. We don't know if they really are refusing to negotiate through backchannels. We cannot take anything that the Iranian regime says at face value. But then again, we can't take anything the President of this country says at face value either. Not when he's stuck in his own fantasy about how this war is going and when the internal process for navigating a war appears to be editing together banger video montages of things blowing up for the Commander in Chief while he continues to operate in his own la la land about how things are going put senior national security officials in an incredibly awkward position when they are still tasked with things like, say, briefing members of Congress on the objectives for the war, our strategy for achieving them, and a timeline for how long it will take and whether men and women are going to be sent more of them to fight a war that has not been explained. And that all played out today when Pentagon officials gave a closed door briefing on Operation Epic Fury to members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. That briefing was classified, but the reaction we got from lawmakers kind of tells you everything you need to know, because even Republicans came out of this Epic Fury briefing with some epic passive aggression. Here was Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace's reaction. Here's what she said, quote, just walked out of a House Armed Services briefing on Iran. Let me repeat, I will not support troops on the ground in Iran even more so after this briefing. And it wasn't just Republican gadflies like Nancy Mace who walked out of that meeting so upset. Congressman Mike Rogers, the chair of the House Armed Services Committee, is generally considered one of the more serious national security voices in the circus that is the Republican Party. And here's what he said.

Congressman Chris d'Aluzio (13:10)

We want to know more about what's going on, what the options are and why they're being considered. And we're just not getting enough answers. We just wanted them to tell us what's the plan. And we didn't get any answers. Repeatedly, we're having these folks in over here to basically tell us very little, and that's not okay. We need them to be more forthcoming about what's going on because we're an essential partner in this process.

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (13:40)

Again, that wasn't a left wing peacenik. That was Mike Rogers, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee. Reporters then asked the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker, if he agreed with those comments. His response was, quote, let me put it this way, I can see why he might have said that. There we go. Nobody has a real sense of where this war is going. That's what you heard from his comments. The winner of the inaugural America First Award seems blissfully unaware of what is actually going on. And now even Republicans in Congress are losing their patience. Joining me now are two members of Congress who were inside that classified briefing today, Congressman Pat Ryan and Congressman Chris d', Aluzio, who are both members of the House Armed Services Committee and both veterans of the Iraq War. Thank you both for being here. Let me start with you, Congressman. I know I stated it was a classified briefing, but can you share those? What can you share with us about what happened inside that room and what the reaction was to the briefing or lack of briefing from members of the Pentagon?

Congressman Pat Ryan (14:38)

It was a total shit show. I mean, and we've been in a lot of these tough briefings over the last year, as you can imagine, especially the last few months. The level of it wasn't even passive aggressive. It was straight aggression from many Republicans and Democrats asking very reasonable questions like, you know, what is our goal? Why are we having no plan when we're now sending a brigade combat team of army soldiers to now Marine Expeditionary units from both sides of the globe? And they literally looked us in the eye and said, we're working on the plan for what they're going to do.

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (15:16)

Congressman, what do you want to add to that?

Congressman Pat Ryan (15:20)

No notes.

Ron Reagan (15:21)

And look, you heard Chairman Mike Rogers, as you say, the Republican leader of this committee we serve on. That frustration is one that I think is shared across the parties in our committee. You don't send Americans to fight. You don't squander the patriotism of our troops without a plan, without knowing what your operational goals are, without having some sense of what comes next and how you're going to get out of this. And I have no confidence this administration has any of those answers. And I think the fact that they didn't even want to come to Congress to talk to us, to face us when he would ask those questions tells me how amateur this is. And we will pay for this. The lives of our troops and the billions of dollars they've already spent in this war.

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (15:59)

The lives of our troops, obviously the money is hugely important. I want to ask about that. But the lives of our troops, and you both have fought in wars yourself, it is these big open questions about what they're being asked to do. Coming out of that briefing, do you feel it's more likely, less likely that they'll send troops to fight on the ground in Iran?

Congressman Pat Ryan (16:19)

Well, I actually asked them, what am I supposed to tell families in my district that have loved ones in those units that are literally underway via boat or plane right now? And it was like a blank stare. And you think about what a betrayal that is to the best of our country who are willing to risk their life on the trust that will do right by them. And so the question is, we heard some of those comments from Republicans today and I appreciate that they finally said a little bit of that publicly, but will they actually back that up? Will they oppose a $200 billion additional blank check on top of a trillion dollar defense budget with no explanation and no plan and clearly no honesty or integrity from the commander in chief?

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (17:05)

That is sort of the question. I mean, I've talked to a lot, a lot of people, members of Congress, others who are experts on the outside. I've talked to a lot of Republicans who say they have concerns about this size of an ask and without any explanation of this war. Did you get a sense from today whether members, the Republicans on the committee might oppose that money? What's your sense?

Ron Reagan (17:24)

They have to answer that question. I think to look at what this administration has said publicly and in settings that we get to be a part of, it's clear the planning is not there. They don't have any clear strategic vision. And let's talk about $200 billion, okay? That could be high speed rail for this country. That could be extending the Affordable Care act tax credits for more than five years. That's childcare for every kid under five in America. We have choices to make. And this administration, which now looks to spend $200 billion on a war, also was cutting taxes for billionaires and taking health care away from people. And so we don't just get to decide these things in a vacuum. It costs money to send Americans to fight and bleed and do what they are sending them to do overseas. And it comes at the cost of things that we need here at home.

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (18:07)

Do you see sending opposing the money as a way for Republicans? It does seem like it's a way for them to say this is not acceptable. And if the money is not approved, how does that impact their ability to continue to conduct a war that's untested, unexplained for, et cetera?

Congressman Pat Ryan (18:25)

Well, they've failed multiple times, the Republicans, to exert that check and balance that our founders and framers intended. We had multiple war powers resolutions we put forward, and they just absolutely spineless in those moments. This is where the rubber really hits the road, though, when to Chris's point, we're talking about people's health care, the pain and pressure points people are feeling, rather than sending more bombs halfway across the world and our troops. And so I still remain honestly optimistic that there are particularly some of the Republican veterans that served in these wars, that we served in Iraq and Afghanistan that will finally say enough is enough. I mean, this guy thinks it's a video game, continues to double down on his and triple down on his bad decisions, and doesn't even have the dignity to take off his baseball cap at a dignified transfer.

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (19:17)

So let me President Trump was just at a fundraiser literally across the street at Union Station, and he talked about the war. I want to play. I don't know if you've seen this, so I want to play part of what he said.

Congressman Chris d'Aluzio (19:32)

I won't use the word war because they say if you use the word war, that's maybe not a good thing to do. They don't like the word war because you're supposed to get approval. So I'll use the word military operation, which is really what it is. It's called a military decimation.

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (19:49)

There's a lot packed in there. He wants to change the language so he doesn't need to seek authorization or trick people into thinking there's not a war. But what was your reaction to that?

Ron Reagan (19:58)

This is a war. Americans have already come back and flagged drape caskets More than 200Americans are wounded. This has cost, by some estimates, north of $20 billion. We've seen us sink naval vessels. This is a war. It has disrupted global energy markets. It's something that was the most predictable thing in the world. I sailed through the Strait of Hormuz nearly 20 years ago. Of course, the Iranians were always a risk to shut down shipping at the Strait. This is a war. And the fact that these guys want to pretend it's something else because they want to avoid the constitutional responsibility that we have, it's weak, it's pathetic, and frankly, it's dishonest. The American people for what they are sending our troops to go do, which is to fight in a war.

Congressman Pat Ryan (20:40)

And that was in front of a group of House Republicans, literally telling them, you are powerless. And they all applauded him.

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (20:47)

Yeah.

Ron Reagan (20:48)

And gave him a trophy.

Congressman Pat Ryan (20:49)

And gave him a trophy.

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (20:50)

Gave him a trophy. At the beginning, I wanted to play, I mean, we don't like to play too much of Trump, but I think it's important for people to hear and for it to be untangled on what it actually means. Because there's so much interest and concern about this war. Because he also revealed kind of how to tuned into or out of reality. He is. He had another. He talked a little bit about the war night. So let's play that too, because I want to talk about that as well.

Congressman Chris d'Aluzio (21:13)

If you listen to the news, you think we're losing a war in Iran where we're decimating the other side. I mean, the better ones have us doing okay. We are decimating. They've got no Navy, they've got no anything. The whole thing is. And then you watch the news. I said, oh, I thought we were doing better than that.

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (21:36)

It's obviously. And I just started the show talking about this completely out of touch with reality. There was new reporting today which is very consistent with what we've known, that the people who are briefing him, which are usually some of the smartest and best people in government, are making a two minute montage video of things blowing up to start the pdb, which is absolutely insane. I'll just say, what do you think the issue is here? I mean, there are some smart people, There are obviously great people who work in the military. Is it that he's not in taking the information? They're not giving him the information. What is your theory?

Congressman Pat Ryan (22:07)

I think what it is, and this is really important, we can have incredible tactical military success at these fairly straightforward military objectives, bombing and destroying targets. And our military is exceptional at that. That does not translate in most cases, frankly, to long term political strategic gains. And so he's getting these briefings every day. We're hitting targets, these are the numbers. And he's like, oh, that sounds great, because I don't know anything about war. I dodged a draft five times, in fact, and no one is telling him, well, Mr. President, tactical success doesn't translate to ultimate victory, which we learned in Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam and many other wars. And he's just so, I think, clueless around that. And no one will speak truth to power. And that's what we've both been trying to say. We can both appreciate that our military is, is exceptional at these tactical tasks, but that they're being failed by their political leadership who aren't translating those into gains. And being honest with the American people.

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (23:07)

There's so many layers happening right now. Of course, there's the funding, we talked about that. There's obviously Trump in its illusional lands. There is the Iranians rejecting a plan. And we don't know all the details about back channel conversations just level set for us. Before we go, what is the state of things as you see it in this war? And what are the biggest questions you have right now?

Ron Reagan (23:30)

The biggest question I have is what the heck is this administration trying to accomplish? Because they give a different explanation every time they're asked. And not knowing their clear objectives then leads to the obvious answer of they don't know what they can do to get out of this. And to me, you've already risked and cost American lives. You've already cost billions of dollars. You seem to have further entrenched this regime that you need to come to the table to negotiate so they don't ever have a nuclear weapon again. I think they have caused a blunder. And it seems now with Marines and Army units coming into the region, this president is poised to be able to try to escalate this thing. That's the last thing he should be doing.

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (24:07)

Congressman, both of you, thank you both for being here. I really appreciate it.

Ron Reagan (24:10)

Thank you, Jennings.

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (24:11)

It's really insightful. Okay, coming up, for so long, we did not know what Jack Smith thought. Donald Trump's motive was for hoarding classified documents at Mar A Lago, though we've seen the photos millions of times. But today we found out more. We found out Jack Smith thought it was about money. Congressman Jamie Raskin is the person who figured it all out. And Congressman Raskin is about to join me live. We'll be right back. The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion and protects us from government imposed religion. But across the country, officials are pushing prayer into public schools and blurring the line between church and state in ways the Constitution doesn't allow. The Freedom from Religion foundation exists to hold the government to the law to keep public institutions new neutral on religion. Visit FFRF US newyear or text Ms. Now to 511-511- text MSNOW to 511-511 to join text fees may apply TaxAct

Ron Reagan (25:06)

knows filing taxes can be confusing, so we have live experts on hand who can help answer any questions you may have. Questions like Can I claim my SUV is my home office? If I answer work emails in my car? If I adopted 12 dogs this year, can I list them as dependents and am right or am I doing this very, very wrong? Our experts have the answers to those questions and many others. Taxact let's get them over with.

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (25:35)

If you're a parent and want to help set up your child for success, then IXL is right for your family as an effective and affordable online learning program. IXL covers math, language arts, science and social studies using interactive practice problems for kids from Pre K to 12th grade. Listeners can get an exclusive 20% off IXL membership when they sign up@ixl.com 20. Visit ixl.com 20 to get the most effective learning program out there at the best price. For years now, we've known that when Trump left his first term in office, he illegally took hundreds and hundreds of pages of classified documents with him. We all remember those photos, stashed them away at Mar A Lago and refused to return them to the government, even after he was subpoenaed for them. We've known Trump did all of that for years, but we've never had any idea as to why he did that is until today. Because today we learn that special prosecutor Jack Smith identified a possible motive while investigating Trump. In a progress memo From January of 2023, Smith's team wrote Trump possessed classified documents pertinent to his business interests, establishing a motive for retaining them. In response to this news, a spokesperson for the White House called Jack Smith deranged and a liar. Of course, it's kind of their go to and insisted that Trump did nothing wrong. The idea that Trump took classified documents, potentially endangering our national security so that he could enrich himself may not be that surprising. It's kind of on brand, but it should be incredibly alarming. Now, if you're wondering how we learned any of this information today, that is quite a story in its own right. Because even though Jack Smith indicted Trump back in 2023, the case never made it to trial. The Trump appointed judge assigned to the case, Aileen Cannon, dismissed the case, saying that Smith hadn't been appointed properly, and tossed the case out with him. Smith memorialized both the classified documents case and his investigation into Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election, writing a report on both of the cases. But at Trump's request, Judge Cannon barred the report about classified documents in that case from ever being made public. And you may remember from Smith's own testimony that it is illegal for anyone to publish that report. He didn't even. We wouldn't even talk about it. It would defy federal court orders. And yet, according to Congressman Jamie Raskin, the Justice Department did exactly that. According to Raskin, two weeks ago, the Justice Department handed the House Judiciary Committee a trove of documents with the purpose of providing Republicans on the committee with fodder they could use to smear Jack Smith. But the Justice Department made a big old mistake because, as Raskin put it in a letter to Trump's Attorney General, Pam Bondi, today, apparently blinded by the frenzied surge to find any scrap of evidence that could be twisted and distorted to level an attack against Special Counsel Smith, you have quite amazingly missed the fact that some of the documents you provided include damning evidence about your boss's conduct and may well violate the gag order your DOJ and Donald Trump demanded from Judge Aileen Cannon. That's right. In an attempt to smear Jack Smith, the Justice Department accidentally handed Democrats some of his findings, findings that Trump literally got a court to bar the release of. That is quite the own goal right there. Now, what the Justice Department gave Congress is not Jack Smith's full classified documents report. It is just a progress memo that Smith filed back in January of 2023, which was five months before he indicted Trump. In addition to saying that Trump took these documents with the motive of enriching himself, Raskin says that the memo suggests that Trump stole documents so sensitive that only six people in the entire US Government had access to them. That's six people, including the President. He also says that the memo specifies that, quote, the disclosure of the documents Trump took represented an aggravated potential harm to national security, and that Trump and his staff acted recklessly with the documents, not just storing them in unsecured locations around Mar a Lago, but doing things like having a 23 year old staffer scan some of the documents onto her laptop and then upload the Scan to the cloud. I mean, what Raskin goes on to say that the Justice Department redacted the text in the memo that followed incidents like these. So it's impossible to determine if any of those incidents led to the documents being compromised or of course, taken by a foreign adversary. More than anything else, the memo the Justice Department inadvertently gave Congress just underscores how much it is in the public interest for the Justice Department to give Congress the rest of the Jack Smith report. Take this example, for instance. Raskin says that the memo shows that In June of 2022, Trump apparently took classified documents on a flight to his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. Prosecutors determined that they identified a classified map that they believe Trump may have shown to individuals on board, an event that prosecutors believe was witnessed by Trump's now chief of staff, Susie Wiles. The memo also includes a map of the aircraft seating assignments and a list of the passengers, but the Justice Department redacted the list. Now, Raskin points out that around the same time as that flight, Trump was entering into a business partnership with the Saudi backed LIV Golf and with a Saudi backed real estate firm. Remember, after January 6th, most of the business world turned its back on Trump. I mean, the pga, which held tournament, had held tournaments at Trump's courses for decades and gave the courses a whole lot of clout, even cut ties with Trump. But then the Saudis threw Trump a bit of a lifeline. They funded a brand new golf league, spending through the nose to poach players from the PGA, and hosted their events at Trump Properties. That story has always been incredibly fishy, and now it is even more so. I mean, as Raskin puts it, without access to Jack Smith's report on the classified documents or his investigative files, there's no way to know what that classified map contained or what the relationship was between the documents Trump stole and Trump's business interests. Clearly, this is a lot more. There is a lot lot more the American public deserves to know here. But when Trump's press secretary, Caroline Levitt, was asked about Congressman Raskin's demand for more information today, here's what she had to say. I saw that letter from Congressman Raskin this morning, who I would add, has zero credibility. I think Jack Smith has been proven to be a liar and a fraud. And this is again a cheap political stunt from a Democrat on Capitol Hill who I think wants to get himself on cable television. And get himself on cable television he did. Congressman Jamie Raskin, who's at the root of all of this, got to the bottom of all of this joins me next. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion and protects us from government imposed religion. But across the country, officials are pushing prayer into public schools and blurring the line between church and state in ways the Constitution doesn't allow. The Freedom From Religion foundation exists to hold the government to the law to keep public institutions neutral on religion. Visit FFRF US New Year or text Ms. Now to 511-511-Text Ms. Now to 511-511 to join Text fees may apply.

Ron Reagan (33:01)

TaxAct can think of a million things more fun than filing taxes TaxAct is going to name some now. Sitting in traffic, folding a fitted bedsheet, listening to your co worker talk about his fantasy team digging a hole. Digging an even larger hole next to that original hole. Unfortunately, TaxAct's filing software can't make taxes fun, but TaxAct can help you get them done. TaxAct, let's get them over with.

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (33:31)

If you're a parent and want to help set up your child for success, then IXL is right for your family as an effective and affordable online learning program. IXL covers math, language arts, science and social studies using interactive practice problems for kids from Pre K to 12th grade. Listeners can get an exclusive 20% off IXL membership when they sign up today@ixl.com 20. Visit ixl.com 20 to get the most effective learning program out there at the best price. Joining me now is Congressman Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and the person who sounded the alarm about this Jack Smith memo just today. Just today. The day has been long. Congressman Raskin, thank you so much for being with us tonight. I should note that this letter you sent is public. People can read it. But I just wanted to dive into more of the specifics here with you because Jack Smith clearly believed that Trump's motive for taking classified documents was business. That's one of the things you outlined, that Trump was attempting to use the documents for some sort of financial gain. Can you tell us why? What do you believe Trump was doing here?

Congressman Jamie Raskin (34:45)

Well, what's interesting is we asked Jack Smith that when he appeared before our committee and he dutifully said he couldn't remark upon it because he had been ordered by Judge Cannon not to talk about what was in the indictment. So he refused to opine on it. And I wish I could say it was brilliant detective work on our part that somehow released this document, but the Trump Justice Department just inadvertently sent it to us. So that's where we learned of this memo stating that there was a business Motivation behind Donald Trump's pilfering of those documents and his illegal retention in storage of them in the ballroom, in the bathrooms, in the pool house, and so on down at Mar A Lago. Well, everybody had suspected that it had to do with business. And there are lots of different theories out there. They're all just theories at this point, Jen. But we know Donald Trump's son in law, Jared Kushner, has a $2.5 billion contract with the Saudis. They gave him that money. He's got money with other corrupt oil monarchies. And so some of the documents taken were maps. And there was defense information allegedly taken and stored. So that's one possibility. We don't know if it relates to crypto and some of Donald Trump's new crypto friends, we have no idea. That's why we say we release volume two of the Jack Smith report, the volume about the mishandling of government documents case every other special counsel report by every other special counsel, you name it. Robert Herr, Robert Mueller, Kenneth Starr, back in independent counsel days, all of them have been released to the public. Republicans have always demanded that the public get to see them. And now suddenly there's this huge cover up and they want to sweep it under the rug. And what did we learn from this document that the Trump just Department, in their inimitable way, sent to us by accident? Well, we learned that the prosecutors believed there was a business motivation behind it. There were documents in there so top secret that only six people in the entire US Government could see them, including the president, which means only five people other than the president could look at these documents. And we also learned that Donald Trump was, you know, brandishing the documents and showing them off on an airplane to people including Susan Wiles. So those are some of the small glimpses we've gotten into what took place. But there's a very simple way to settle this. The White House doesn't like the fact that it came out. They claim that Jack Smith is a fraud and a liar, which is sweet coming from a woman who works for a guy who has 34 felony convictions on his record for criminal fraud. But Jack Smith can defend himself in any event, if they want to get to the bottom of it, and there's nothing to hide. Release the special counsel's report. Every other special counsel report has been released. Why not this one? Why is this one any different? What are they afraid of?

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (37:50)

That's the big question. I mean, you raised a lot of interesting questions. I should note. You just mentioned Jared Kushner, you Also named checklive Golf. I just talked about this and a real estate deal that Trump made back in 2022. Those were, of course, happening around the same time that Trump had these documents, which makes that interesting. You also asked one of your demands to Pam Bondi is for to produce a list of which members of Trump's family, if any, were made aware of these classified documents. I mean, we're all paying attention to and covering the fact that Trump and his family have made oodles of money during this administration. Why don't you ask for the family members specifically? Is that what you're getting at or what are you getting at there?

Congressman Jamie Raskin (38:28)

Well, it seems clear when you look at Bush's occupancy of the White House in the first term and from what we've seen in the second that this is a money making operation. Donald Trump has made billions of dollars more in one year in office in the second term than every other president in American history combined. If you put them all together, it doesn't come close to what Donald Trump has done. He has turned the White House into an instrument of money making and private profiteering. And his family is totally part of it. In fact, his defense for what he's done, when people raise the foreign emoluments clause and the domestic emoluments clause, which calls the phony emoluments clause, is that he is no longer running his business. He's just profiting from it. He's just benefiting from it. But it's his sons who are running his business. That's quite a defense. But in any event, it's clear that it's a family business. They're all working together. And so we want to know exactly what the role of everybody was.

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (39:33)

We all want to know. Got to let us know if you hear anything. Congressman Jamie Raskin, thank you as always for joining us. Okay, Coming up, Jeffrey Epstein's account gets one question and gives three different answers. Congressman Ro Khanna has been trying to figure out why. And we want to know, too. And he joins me next. One of the enduring mysteries from the Epstein files revolves around an Epstein accuser known as Jane Doe Number four, who also made allegations of sexual assault against Donald Trump, allegations Trump denies. And a few weeks ago, when Jeffrey Epstein's former accountant, Richard Kahn, testified before the House Oversight Committee, Democrats asked about Jane Doe no. 4 and whether the Epstein estate paid her a settlement.

Congressman Chris d'Aluzio (40:24)

Is it true that Jane Doe 4, the citation is Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, 119 CB 07675, Southern District of New York received a financial settlement directly from the estate. As her attorney, as clerk. I'm sorry, I don't know who Jane Dufour is. She's the person who has been widely described as alleging that President Trump raped or abused her when she was 13 in the 1980s. And her attorney is out there, has said that she received a settlement from the estate. Congressman, may I just tell him who Jane Dofour is? Just refreshes him. I believe I understand who you're referring to. I believe that Jane Dofor received a settlement via mediation with the estate, I believe, in 2025.

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (41:21)

Okay. So he acknowledged who she was, said she received. Khan said she received a settlement. But then later on in that deposition, his lawyer said he was not 100% certain he remembers Jane Doe number four.

Congressman Chris d'Aluzio (41:35)

We do not recognize that individual to be someone who has brought claims against the estate or that we have mediated with and resolved.

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (41:48)

It was a bizarre turnaround. Now, even more bizarre is in a letter two days after the deposition, Khan and his lawyer said that they could not confirm whether or not the estate settled with the woman. Joining me now to maybe untangle all this is Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna. So I just kind of gave a summary of all of the different answers here. What do you make of that? And why have they gone through three different answers and basically the same question?

Congressman Chris d'Aluzio (42:13)

I mean, I thought I was pretty clear about who this woman was. She's the person who accused Donald Trump of raping her when she was 13. And she was interviewed four times by the FBI. So the FBI obviously found it credible enough to interview her four times. You saw he was very uncomfortable. He said, yes, the estate paid a settlement, and then five hours later, he retracts it all. And you've got Colmer out there after the press conference saying Khan is a liar. She retracted it all. So Garcia and I, who's the ranking member, said we're going to write a letter to see what they actually mean. And then I think the lawyer said, well, you can't perjure yourself. That's a crime. And so they said, well, we can't either confirm or deny. What does that mean? They know whether they paid the settlement or not. And the reality is the fear that someone like him has of Trump. I mean, we have seen this time and again with people coming to the Oversight Committee. They're afraid that Trump could direct Pam Bondi to prosecute them or take some action against them. And it's really sad to see.

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (43:14)

It's strange as to why he would be afraid. Maybe I'm not. Maybe I'm not imagining it big enough. Do you have any information to believe that the settlement was involving Trump? I know that's a question you asked, but have you learned anything new about that?

Congressman Chris d'Aluzio (43:27)

We don't know. But the reality is, if there was a settlement, even if the allegations were against Epstein and the allegations are against both Epstein and Trump, that's giving some credibility. I mean, you can't say that someone has no credibility. And then the Epstein estate is settling with her and paying her money. And so the Trump administration has said, oh, this is just all bogus. This survivor has no legitimacy. Well, if there's an acknowledgement that Epstein settled, then there's an acknowledgement that she obviously had some abuse. And then there are questions that President Trump needs to answer.

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (44:01)

And also the FBI interviewed her a number of times and she decided not to continue. What do you do now that you've had a chance and people have a chance to watch this deposition? What do you do now because you're still eager to get to the bottom of the information here? What's next?

Congressman Chris d'Aluzio (44:14)

Well, first of all, it's absurd that the Department of Justice isn't doing this right. My job as a congressperson is to worry about gas prices and housing prices, not to conduct an entire investigation. But it's on Congress because the Justice Department has not investigated this. They haven't asked any questions of the estate. They weren't getting the documents from the estate. It took me subpoenaing them because of Lawrence o' Donnell's show to get this information. I mean, so what Massey and I and the Oversight Committee are committed to is now getting the other people in to be investigated. This is why we need to take back the House. And then calling for investigations and prosecutions for the men who raped these girls. They sat in my office, Jen. These are survivors with trauma and nothing is being done, even though the men are in the files who raped them.

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (45:02)

I know that your tirelessness and the tirelessness of so many members of Congress will keep talking about it. And most importantly, these survivors who are just out there and continue to be. Hopefully that will all will continue to get to the bottom of the truth here. That's what everybody wants. Congressman Ro Khanna, thank you as always for being here.

Congressman Chris d'Aluzio (45:19)

Thank you.

Host (possibly Jen Psaki or a similar political commentator) (45:19)

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 this year. Perfect your morning routine with Nespresso, vertuo up with a three second start, easy open lever and dedicated coffee creations mode button. It's easier than ever to brew coffee with smooth flavor and rich Crema over ice or milk. It's your coffee your way at the click of a button. Sip for yourself and shop vertuo up@nespresso.com.