Loading summary
Transcript107 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign.
- [00:11]
B
Champion, pain. Some die of thirst. No way of knowing which way it's going. Hope for the best. Expect the worst. Hope for the best. Welcome to the Commentary magazine daily podcast. Today. Today is Wednesday, June 10, 2026. I am Jon Podhoritz, the editor of Commentary magazine. With me, as always, executive editor Abe Greenwald. Hi, Abe. Hi, John. Senior editor Seth Mandel. Hi, Seth.
- [00:41]
A
Hi, John.
- [00:41]
B
And Washington Free Beacon editor Eliana Johnson. Hi, Eliana.
- [00:46]
C
Hi, John.
- [00:48]
B
Seth, I just want to lay out the last 14 hours or 24 hours. So the Iranians attack an Apache helicopter whose crew undergoes a miraculous rescue by a very high new fangled high tech piece of equipment that helps rescue them. The President says it's no big deal. Then later in the day, he says it is a big deal. Then he strikes back at various sites in Iran. But the administration wants it to be known that these attacks, this response is proportionate. It's proportionate and therefore, in theory, because it's a proportionate response to a single action, implicitly, the ceasefire is holding, even though we had direct exchange of blowing things up and out of the sky. Then the President starts tweeting out on Truth Social, a scene from the West Wing in which somebody starts screaming about how proportionality in war is stupid and that this is not, you know, what you need to do is hit your enemy back 10 times harder. TRUMP does that. Then he tells Trey Angst of Fox that he's just about had enough. And the Iranians, it's too late and he's now gonna go for their jugular. So I feel like I'm living inside the brain of a severely bipolar person. And if it's like up, if it were like the movie up or something, you know, inside out, you know, where you see the emotions of this person inside, it would be like being on one of those loop de loop roller coasters that I'm too afraid of, on which you can never get off. And it just keeps going and then it goes backwards and then it goes sideways and then you fly off the track. But then you get back on the track. I don't know. We have two and a half more years of this presidency. I honestly don't know if I can take it. I don't know. I don't. I help.
- [03:19]
A
It reminds me of something you said, actually to be when the administration started in 2016, and we had like that first insane two months because of what happened over the transition, and you were like, it can't go on for four years this way. Simply because the human heart isn't constructed to handle four years of this and that it's therefore not physically possible. It's not humanly possible for him to do this for four years. And that was exactly 10 years ago. So almost actually nine and a half years ago. So.
- [03:58]
B
Yeah.
- [03:58]
A
I mean, the thing is, I feel like this. What happened yesterday is very much in my wheelhouse because I too, inappropriately quote the West Wing when I shouldn't. This is a problem. I've been very good about it.
- [04:13]
B
I work for the West Wing, and I never quote the West Wing anyway. I spent a year as a consultant on the West Wing, and you won't hear me quoting the West Wing.
- [04:23]
A
Quoting the West Wing is like. It's like biting one's nails. You work on getting rid of the habit. And posting clips of these West Wing shows is something that I've been very good about not doing for a while. But I understand sometimes late at night, it just. A clip from the West Wing feels like it's the only thing that will do. The more serious point is that the. The. That centcom saying these were proportional responses. You don't say something is proportional. Right. The. The problem there. And I mean this in. In all seriousness, the problem there is, is reading stage direction for the other guy. Right? Like, now, you don't shoot back. Right? That's what this was all about. And you're not supposed to read that kind of stage direction in public. But you're also not supposed to sound pleading. It sounded pleading. Okay, you did that. We did that. Can we stop now? And I think the American military has to refrain from sounding pleading. It's one thing for diplomats to sound that way. I don't love it. I don't love when the president sounds that way in negotiations, but I really think there's just no place for it at CENTCOM at all during a war. But the other thing is that. And this is not a pedantic thing, is that that's not actually what. Proportionate. I know he said proportional, but the concept of proportionate. It's not what proportionate means. And it actually is important because proportionality in war is about the amount of force that you use to go after what is understood to be a legitimate military target. It's either a legitimate target or it's not. If it's a legitimate target, then don't use the bazooka to kill the mosquito, as the fortune cookies used to say when we were kids in every Chinese restaurant. And that's really what it's about. It's not about arranging A dance where we know each other's steps and we can sort of guide each other around the ballroom. And that's the feeling you get watching this, the feeling of something that feels staged, that doesn't feel like their heart is in it and all that. So I think just the whole thing. In this particular case, weirdly, Trump was right, at least in spirit, to not approve of the use of the term proportional in that kind of statement from centcom. He's the commander in chief, and if. And, you know, whatever. So I'm not saying, you know, I'm not saying he should. You should post clips of the West Wing to make that point. But I do think the president is hearing people in the public for the past week say he looks weak. And he's responding to that. And that's why you got his comments to his latest comments saying, I don't know what's taking them so long, but I'm running out of patience. It might be time to blow them up. That's what you're hearing is the president is however insulated he can be at times. He knows public sentiment, and he knows that public sentiment has shifted on this war from. Not just from, I hope it ends soon, because I don't like war, but to Trump really kind of seems to be bossed around a lot lately, and that's bad for America's image no matter what happens next.
- [07:51]
B
Look, so I listened to up first from NPR this morning, and they had a report on the doings of the last 24 hours, and it has now become axiomatic. These are liberal reporters, right? This is a NPR liberal station, basically. And they're just like, look, Trump is just looking for a way to get out of this war. He wants out of the war. And. And he is trying to do things that will make it easier for him to exit the war. If they're saying that, if they're not saying Trump is a warmonger who is destroying the Middle east and everything is just in such terrible, horrible conditions, if they are now taking it as simply a given that Trump is desperately trying to find some way to Wunsie out of the war, he's got real problems because hawks already have already climbed on this bandwagon, like, what the hell are you doing? Why are you attacking the Israelis? Why are you telling the Israelis to stop attacking Hezbollah? Why are you doing Iran's work for Iran and helping Iran save Hezbollah from the Israelis who are trying to get Hezbollah to stop firing on the communities in the north of Israel? And why aren't you, why aren't you doing anything? And now this has become conventional wisdom that he wants an escape. And just to make it clear what that means, I understand why this is now in the interests of people who wish him ill, because an escape at this moment means that he loses. So. And I don't know that he. I think he knows that. I actually think somewhere inside his soul, he knows that and is finding himself in this bipolar way. He thinks the war is hurting him, and on the other hand, he thinks any peace will hurt him. And so he's trying to invent, through willpower alone, some kind of negotiated thing that will allow him to say that he won with enough tiny bits of credibility that at least his manosphere can go out and find some way to defend him on the grounds that he did what was necessary and no more than what was necessary. And the bipolarity is reflected in exactly what you're talking about. Why would somebody inside the administration say we're only doing a proportionate response? Because they're serving the idea that what is really going on and what is most important for the administration is getting to the deal with the Iranians and not protecting American forces, American bases, and American allies in the Middle east two months or three months after a war that we started.
- [11:00]
D
You know what it reminds me of?
- [11:01]
B
They don't know what to say. Yeah.
- [11:04]
D
It reminds me of when. During the Obama years, when Assad was first caught using chemical weapons. And Obama said, he's crossed my red line. We're gonna have to do something. And the administration didn't wanna do anything. And this was before they got bailed out by the Russians. And so they were gonna strike Assad. And everyone's going crazy about it. What kind of. And they were so scared to be forward, leaning on this, to be aggressive, that at one point, John Kerry in a press conference said, listen, listen, we're talking about incredibly small strikes.
- [11:54]
B
That's right, incredibly small strikes. And then again, Obama's the one who set the red line, right? He said, this is my red line. And then Assad crosses the red line. And then Obama says, okay, Congress, you tell me to go to war with Syria, I'm not gonna do anything until Congress approves of this. And Congress is like, hey, wait a minute, how did we get. Why are we supposed to shoulder this? We didn't draw the red line. You drew the red line. You have the power to do a limited strike or do whatever it is you think to do to announce to Assad that he has crossed an 80 year forbidden thing by using chemical weapons after World War I. You're the one not us. And then Russia came in and said, no, no, it's okay, we'll take it off your hands. Don't worry like that. But Trump's got no exit ramp. Got no exit ramp. That's why he's starting to get a little angry at Bibi. That's why. Because now he's, like, looking around for somebody to blame. And he can't blame Bibi, because blaming Bibi means endorsing the idea that somehow he was led into the war by Bibi. So he's just mad and he's mad and then he's happy and then he's redecorating the portico and then he's yelling at Joe Scarborough and then he's gonna have a UFC fight on the White House lawn in three days. And this is the most deadly serious thing a nation can do is go to war. And he is humiliating himself every hour that passes. He can reverse that humiliation in a second if he does what he told TRAINST that he is going to do, which is he's had enough, they're leading him on and he is going to finish this. But absent that, I don't know where this goes. A quick message from today's sponsor, the ASPCA Pet Health Insurance Program. If you've ever owned a pet, you know they run on their own logic. Jump first, think later, ask questions never. It's part of what makes them so lovable, but it's also how you end up with those surprise vet visits you didn't see coming. ASPCA Pet Health Insurance helps cover eligible vet expenses, so when those moments happen, you can focus on getting your pet the care they need without overthinking the cost or second guessing your decision. When you enroll in an ASPCA Pelt Health Insurance plan, you could get a $25Amazon gift card. It's a little treat for you while you're doing something great for your pet. It's been around for almost 20 years and has covered nearly 1 million pets in that time. You can tailor your plan to fit your budget, your lifestyle, and your pet's particular quirks. To Explore coverage, visit aspcapetinsurance.com commentary that's aspcapetinsurance.Com commentary. Eligibility restrictions apply. Visit aspcapetinsurance.COM AmazonTerms for more info. This is a paid advertisement. Insurance is underwritten by either Independence American Insurance Company or United States Fire Insurance Company and produced by PTZ Insurance Agency Ltd. The ASPCA is not an insurer and is not engaged in the business of insurance. You know when you're shopping online and you want to buy something and you're on a website that you already have a login to, but you can't remember the password or you want to buy something, you got your credit card out, but you can't remember the three digigit number that you got to do at the end of your credit card number. And then you got to go find your wallet and it's late and you're tired. Picture this though. Late at night, you're scrolling, you see the product and you know what you see there? You see a purple pay button right there next to the product you want to buy. It has all your information saved. It makes checking out as simple as a simple tap of your screen. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e commerce in the US from household names like the Commentary magazine podcast to brands to just getting started. So for vendors, you got to think about how Shopify will help accelerate your efficiency, whether you're uploading new products or trying to improve existing ones. Packed with helpful AI tools that write product descriptions, page headlines, and even enhance your product photography. Best yet, Shopify is your commerce expert with world class expertise and everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns and beyond. C Fewer carts go abandoned and more sales go with Shopify and their shop pay button. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.com commentary that's shopify.com commentary shopify.com commentary.
- [17:01]
A
You know, you wonder how much of the communication is to people in his own administration or his supporters in a weird way. For example, we, we've, we've, we've long talked about the fact that if you work for Trump and you want to talk to him, you go on tv, right? It, there's, that's the direct line to Trump. Even if you work for him, rather than going through some, you know, I'm not going to file some interagency piece of paperwork. Right. But you begin to wonder if there's something similar happening in reverse, which is Trump knows he has to hit back at an Iranian strike. They shot down one of our helicopter. We have to shoot back. You almost get the sense that he's saying that to like the people at the American Conservative in these places. And he's like, don't freak out, okay? I'm just doing a proportional response. But with Trump, everything is public and maybe the intended recipient of that message, at least in part, is the group of people that he doesn't want, he doesn't want to have a whole new round of Tucker and Megyn Kelly podcast episodes about this. And what, whatever, whatever the, the importance of that actually is. You get the sense that he might be trying to convince people on his own side to not jump down his throat. Throat every time he does something.
- [18:32]
B
I am glad that you went there because I think it is time for us to talk about, and I say this seriously, the most jaw dropping piece of inside the White House reporting.
- [18:47]
C
John, before we go there, can I just extend Seth's comment? One area which is what's been occurring to me is Trump clearly wants to wrap this up, but the strategy he's pursuing is not achieving that. What he's achieving is actually dragging this out indefinitely because what Iran is doing is it's proxy Hezbollah is attacking Israel, Iran is attacking us. We have, you know, a hot ceasefire and the result is a prolonging of this conflict at a low level that is going to extend indefinitely. And while Trump is saying we're on the verge of, you know, a peace deal, the Vice President is conceding that negotiations may extend for months, which is what Iran wants.
- [19:45]
B
Until the elections.
- [19:46]
C
Exactly. So this is going to stay, stay top of the news in the headlines with skirmishes with oil prices elevated and skirmishes taking place, you know, attacks on our allies here, attacks on American forces there, the potential of a breakout into a much larger conflict looming over everything. Odd infinitum. And that to me is what argues for, you know, if the President wants to cry uncle, just cry uncle if you wanna get this over with. Or much more preferable, let's do something big and end this right now.
- [20:33]
B
Jonathan Schanzer.
- [20:34]
C
Cause this is not a strategy that's achieving what he wants to achieve.
- [20:38]
B
So Jonathan Schanzer would say, were he here, that there is a third way. And the third way is, is in fact to let this extend out, keep Iran blockaded and see Iran collapse and implode internally. But that will take until the elections or after. That is a long term strategy to choke Iran without having to resort to, to military action. However, it gives Iran the freedom to do things like if it gets an opportunity to shoot down an American aircraft, it will shoot down an American aircraft. And then we have to respond to it. We're not in charge of how and what conditions. We are in kinetic action against Iran. Iran gets to pick that we're choking them off, but we're not trying to engage them militarily. So their only recourse is to try to pick off targets of opportunity where they can humiliate us or inflict pain on us or injury on us. And we're just gonna stand there and take it or do the John Kerry just a little bit of striking and in the long run, that sort of, if, you know, you were thinking, oh my God, the Machiavellian genius here is that we will let Iran collapse on its own and we don't even have to do anything except hold the line. Trump cannot hold any line. That this is who Trump is. He can't hold the line for an hour and a half. That's why I analogize this to the roller coaster that you can never get off of. He has no capability to say, okay, what we're doing is it's gonna take six months and we're gonna probably go into a recession. And inflation today, they reported, is up 4.2 is at an annualized rate of 4.2%. And gas prices are up and people are mad at me and all of that. But in the end, this is gonna be the best victory we could ever have had. We lost no men. The, the country, our enemy imploded and we have changed the world for the better. But that's not really who he is. And now who he is or who he might be is the subject of where I was going before. This jaw dropping excerpt from a book by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan about Trump's second term that appears today in the New York Times is classified as a piece of the New York Times Magazine. And it's about the White House reaction and Justice Department reaction to the Epstein files. So the first thing I want to ask is, I want to ask Eliana, a lot of people, if they hear me say the New York Times has done a great story, they're gonna get mad cause it's the New York Times and they hate the New York Times. And I hate the New York Times too. But I've known Maggie Haberman for 30 years. She is a really, really good reporter. She was a really good reporter when she was at the New York Post with me. She, I am unaware, except for her participation in some Russiagate stories in which she was not the lead reporter of anything that she has done in her professional career that, you know, has been, you know, has, has been an embarrassing or very wrong headed approach to a story. And there is. So the detail in this piece about how the administration decided it was going to respond to the Epstein files is so thick and so detailed and. And so clearly multisourced that I find it very hard to believe that there is anything here that isn't true. I mean, maybe things are more shaded or flavored, but that isn't true. And I wanna say that at the outset. Cause if you wanna shut us off at this point. Cause nothing about Trump in the New York Times could possibly be true. It's not that I don't have sympathy for that opinion, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And this piece is right there for you to make up your own mind about.
- [25:20]
C
It's a really good piece. And I've known both Maggie and Jonathan Swan. Who. It's an excerpt from a forthcoming book. They have. I've known both of them for over a decade. I consider them both friends. I think they're great reporters on the Trump beat. So if you want to turn us off again, go ahead now. But they're very good, very aggressive, very scrupulous reporters on this beat found the lib. Yeah.
- [25:51]
A
As a million people are screaming now on Twitter as they listen to stuff.
- [25:55]
C
Okay, so look, so for everyone who comments that I'm the Trump apologist on this podcast, remember I said that.
- [26:03]
B
There we go. It's true. Okay, so look, the overarching effect of this piece is to let you know, if you didn't know, that the administration's communication strategy at the very top and then filtering down to people who are making policy on extraordinarily sensitive and important things is focused on X and the manosphere. The Vice President of the United States told his fellow members of the White House inner counsel in the Situation Room where they met to discuss the Epstein files. This is the situation where wars are conducted. From that, Tucker Carlson should go interview Ghislaine Maxwell to exonerate Trump from charges that he was involved with Jeffrey Epstein. I want to repeat that the Vice President of the United States communication strategy to deal with the rising problem of the unresolvable Jeffrey Epstein story was to activate an anti Semitic, anti American psychotic who happens to be his friend to go talk to a pimp serving a lifetime sentence in jail whose testimony will then help Trump and solve the problem. So if you think that that guy is going to win the 2020 election, you might be right. How do I know? I didn't think Trump would win in 2016. But the guy who came up with that strategy is not someone with good political instincts is what I'm saying. Not to put it mildly, but to put it bluntly, that is the dumbest shit I have ever heard. And the story bubbles through a year of this from inside the administration.
- [28:26]
C
Well, you know what jumped out at me, John, there are a couple things in the story was one, the Epstein files was one of the first instances where the podcasters, starting with Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson were crosswise with the administration. And were the people fanning the conspiracy theory flames and trying to gin up the MAGA base against the administration about this. And the administration really had them to blame for much of the conspiracy theorizing about this. So it's interesting, you know, it struck me as an attempt, you know, ham handed attempt by the Vice President to try to bring them back onside somehow. But what ended up actually bringing the MAGA base back onside in the Epstein files was, and this is what I think that Maggie and Jonathan we might not see eye to eye on because their story concludes with the publication of the Wall Street Journal story that Trump had written this birthday note to Epstein. And they say everyone, 2003. Yeah, yeah, they were all in a panic about it. It was a birthday note to Epstein and I'm sure many of our listeners will remember, but it was sort of in the shape of a nude woman. And when I read that, and Trump has sued the Wall Street Journal over it, when I saw that story, I thought, this is what they got on Trump and Epstein. This is a total nothing burger. And that put Trump crosswise with the mainstream media. And that brought Trump, that reunited Trump with his MAGA base because that is where he operates from comfort. So I thought it was interesting that the administration was panicked about that story because really that was kind of what calmed everything again. And in fact, I think it was savvy that the administration, even though I don't agree with it, they, they argued for, they wanted to release everything and that transparency was what exonerated Trump because all of the facts, every fact that has come out about Epstein in those files has been exculpatory of Trump's relationship with him.
- [30:56]
B
But Trump didn't want that Journal.
- [30:59]
C
That was helpful to him.
- [31:00]
B
Trump didn't want that.
- [31:02]
C
Trump didn't want it, but his people did.
- [31:04]
B
Trump so didn't want it.
- [31:06]
C
Didn't want it.
- [31:07]
B
So didn't want it.
- [31:09]
C
The story shows the debate that some of his advisors were saying we should try to do this and have a judge block it and that Congress is gonna get there anyway. I think Vance understood that. Vance understood that Congress will get there anyway and we should get this stuff out. But it has ultimately all been exculpatory of Trump. And where I part ways with Jonathan and Maggie is that I think the Journal story helped Trump.
- [31:42]
B
You know, when I go out and people who are listeners to the podcast see me on the street, they're always asking me, is that quince is what you're wearing? Quince. And the answer is yes. It's usually quince. And why I keep coming back to Quints is because they focus on high quality essentials that feel and look amazing. Think breathable linen and soft organic cotton, particularly for summer. Well made basics but without the luxury markup. It's that rare balance where everything feels elevated but still effortless. Quince European linen pants and shirts. Perfect warm weather upgrade to add to your rotation starting at just $34. Their tees are soft and easy to wear and their lightweight cotton sweaters are perfect for cooler summer nights. Elevate your summer wardrobe. Go to quint.com commentary for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q U Y N C for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com commentary
- [32:43]
E
I started with one shop. No college degree, no big investors. It was just a willingness to work. Over time that one shop turned into a multi billion dollar business called Crash Champions. All the lessons I learned along the way came from the grind. And that's what my show Pod Crash is all about. We have real conversations with people who've built things the hard way. We talk to founders, athletes and blue collar leaders who kept going when things got tough. You'll hear stories of grit, leadership and growth. Plus real world lessons you can take back to your team and your life tomorrow.
- [33:18]
B
When you get momentum, you step on the gas.
- [33:21]
A
That's how you get separation from everybody else.
- [33:23]
B
I was at Harvard Law School as Loblaw I looked up so let me tell you something.
- [33:26]
A
There's kids in my neighborhood putting in
- [33:27]
B
sheetrock that is smarter than you.
- [33:29]
A
AI is going to disrupt a lot of stuff.
- [33:31]
B
It is never going to disrupt physical blue collar trade skill.
- [33:35]
A
And the guy just looked at me
- [33:36]
B
and he said it's bloody impossible. So I asked him this question.
- [33:40]
A
I said it's impossible.
- [33:41]
E
Unless that's Podcast with me Matt ebert. Watch on YouTube and listen wherever you get your podcast.
- [33:56]
B
Todd Blanche, now nominated to be Attorney General, seems to have been the only person in the room talking about strategy. I believe it was Todd Blanche who was not an idiot because you just alluded to this. He said, if we propose to release the entirety of the Epstein files, meaning raw 302 documents. Those are interviews between the FBI and witnesses preparing material for a grand jury. Those are the most sacredly sealed documents in the United States because they feature raw allegations of wrong. Can feature raw allegations of wrongdoing within. No evidence and nothing. They are just an interview with somebody who says, I saw Goody Watson with the devil last night. And it has been axiomatic that those remain under seal forever, just as grand jury proceedings are under seal, because a grand jury decides whether or not a case rises to the level of indictment, at which point it then you still have the presumption of innocence for the person who is being accused. And at that point, evidence can be marshaled and maintained and argued with, and the other side gets a say. And Blanche, again, I think it was Blanche, said, we should advocate this because there can be court action. And then a judge will say, you cannot release these files. It will be. I refuse to permit this. You cannot release grand jury testimony. You cannot release 302 files. If you go down this path, our entire justice system will collapse. That was Machiavellian and smart. Look like you're being transparent. Say you want transparency. Get somebody else to be the guy who says, this isn't gonna. You know, I'm not gonna let you do this. And maybe, as he says, if we're lucky, we'll get a Democratic judge, and then we can say, well, we wanted to release the files, but this Democratic judge wouldn't allow it to happen. And therefore, you know, we're trying to serve the purposes of the people who want the Epstein files released, but our hands are. Our hands are tied. We're so sorry. Our hands are tied. That is the only bit of strategy that I can see here that has made any sense. And if Eliana, if you're right, that the files exonerated him, that was because they prevaricated and temporized and did all this until Congress passed the law that made the Epstein files that mandated that the entirety of the 6 million pages be released. Not the White House, not the people
- [37:19]
C
in that room, not in the story. Vance actually says, Congress is going to do this, so we should get ahead of them. And I actually think that was smart, because it was a bad look to have their hands forced by Congress. The other thing we should talk about is it says that David Warrington, the White House counsel, put forward a bunch of options without advocating for any of them, one of which was pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell and then getting her to be like, trump didn't do anything. And then Stephen Chung says, pardoning Maxwell, a trafficker of young girls would create a huge PR problem in, in a bit of understatement.
- [38:06]
B
Yes. So, yeah,
- [38:11]
A
that, that process was also one detail I liked in that discussion was when they had settled on the grand jury strategy, it was, okay, Susie Wiles, go to the President and talk to him about maybe posting on Truth Social that the, the, the court should release the, the grand jury testimony, which I thought was one thing that, you know, part of the, the president is in everything and everything the president says and thinks is, is public. And instead of there being like there was this whole crisis team, but in the end it was whether the president was going to post something on his, on the president's version of Twitter, which was interesting. And the other thing about it is that Vance's, you know, Eliana raised Vance's, his, his, his petitioning to get ahead of the story. But from this story, everybody in the room thought that that meant that Vance believed the rumors. They, they, they say straight out, they came away thinking Vance was this major conspiracy theorists. And of course, this is something that plays to.
- [39:22]
B
Well, the story says Susie Wiles literally said to him, you're a conspiracy theorist. So he wants to know the story alludes.
- [39:32]
C
I think the story actually alludes to her later public claim to the times that, oh, J.D.
- [39:39]
B
oh, sorry, that's right. I apologize. Right. But. So his solution is to go to the nation's foremost conspiracy theorist to have that person go, be given access to the child trafficker pimp serving a life sentence to exonerate Trump. Which, by the way, he would have no reason to believe or know that that's how that conversation would go. Although we do know that Todd Blanche did go, did interview Maxwell. She said, I never saw anything with Trump. And then mysteriously, Maxwell was moved to a much nicer prison.
- [40:25]
C
And that became a problem for the administration, which underscores the fiasco that giving her a pardon would have been.
- [40:32]
B
Right, exactly. So then we shift over to, to the fact that inside the administration, at Trump's behest or maybe advances, I don't know. We don't know who made these decisions. We have two or three major figures in the world of promoting in 2023 and 2024, the idea that the Epstein files needed to be released thoroughly because they revealed the corruption at the heart and rod of the American elite. And hopefully, I think they thought we're going to sort of like take Bill Clinton down and therefore the whole edifice of, and that is Don Bongino, the assistant FBI director, and Cash Patel The FBI director. And they were both encouraged later on in the process, months after this meeting, to agree to issue a statement that said that we have gone through all of these materials, and we see and there's nothing there. And from what the story says, which I take it comes from Bonino and Patel, though it doesn't say that, obviously, but it quotes them very directly, screaming and yelling is that they didn't want to do it because they didn't believe it, and they didn't want to say it because they didn't believe it, and they did it because they were being good soldiers. And Bongino is like, I've sacrificed millions of dollars and my following in the manosphere and the podcastosphere, and now I'm gonna sacrifice my integrity and my reputation because I was one of the Epstein conspiracy theorists, and you're making me go out and take the bullet on the idea that there's nothing to the files. So somebody had the bright idea of bringing them into the administration, and then the files are sitting there, and they're panicked because, like Vance, they think that there's probably stuff in there that will destroy Trump, but there's 6 million pages of it. Who's gonna go for it?
- [42:49]
A
That's why. Sorry to interrupt, but that's that very point, right? That there might be something in there is why I had to read the following sentence three times to make sure I had read it correctly in the story. This bl. This just knocked me over. This was when they had the influencers in to say, we got the Epstein files, you know, whatever, and they came out, they waved the binders and all that stuff. But as Bondi's staff started distributing the binders, the blood pressure of other officials in the room skyrocketed. They had no idea what was in the handouts. The Attorney General was distributing something she was calling the Epstein files that had not been vetted by anyone in the White House. One official opening. The binder began flipping through the pages to see if Trump's name was mentioned anywhere. A few pages in, right in the middle of the page, there it was. I'm sorry. That's the most insane thing I've ever heard in my life. The Attorney General released a binder of Epstein files.
- [43:55]
B
2. Tell. Tell people who she released it to.
- [43:59]
A
She released it to DC Drano and TikTok and Mike Cernovich and a couple others. Yes, this. This was. This was an almost. This was. I mean, part of it is like, listen, I walked DC Drano through the files. You know, you should all feel better about this. Some of this is just like, that is a snapshot of where we are right now and how all this stuff works. But, yes, it was social media, right wing social media influencers who were on the Epstein beat, because that's what right wing social media influencers were on about. And therefore they figured if we give it to them, we'll do essentially what a version of what they had talked about with Todd Blanche and, and the grand jury, which was. First, we'll give them these people a binder and it'll show that we're trying to be transparent. Second, it'll get specific people off our backs that might not otherwise. And third, it'll make these people feel good that we're the ones, you know, we went to, whatever. And the whole thing is supposed to be a sham of transparency. It's just supposed to say the President is being transparent. I'm welcoming in the Epstein conspiracy theorists and giving them the binder. But I'm sorry. The Attorney General handed a binder to DC Drano and Mike Cernovich that had FBI cold files from the Epstein files, select files in it, and no one, no one in the White House had vetted it for first, even for something as simple as looking for Trump's name, the name of the president in the binder, of the files. I can't believe this paragraph.
- [45:54]
B
So, Bongino, according to the story, again, we're mixing up timelines here. We're not doing this in chronological order. The story does, but we're picking out highlights. At some point in these months of all this stuff going on, Bongino storms into Pam Bondi's office and says, you're an idiot. What the hell is the matter with you? You're the most incompetent person I've ever seen. What the hell are you doing? What's the matter with you? This is his boss. Like, he's screaming at her, you should resign. You should be fired. Da, da, da, da, da. By the way, she was eventually fired earlier this year. She was fired. It is absolutely over this. What?
- [46:44]
C
She was fired over this.
- [46:46]
B
But the thing that she did that Seth is talking about the binder, the handing out the binders to D.C. drano, you know, and Liquid Plumber and whoever else was in the room had happened a year earlier, before she was like, they let her stick around for a year. The other funny and interesting detail is that apparently Pam Botti does not use email. She doesn't read her email. So, like, there are conversations going on about everything that's going on in this, which she's copied on. But they don't know what she knows or doesn't know because mostly she doesn't read her email because I don't know what she's, you know, she's getting her Botox done or something. She does look amazing.
- [47:37]
C
Yeah, don't go there, John.
- [47:38]
B
She looks amazing.
- [47:42]
C
You know, us women of a certain age, we've gotta take care of our.
- [47:47]
B
I have no problem with it, especially
- [47:49]
C
those working for the President.
- [47:51]
B
I have no problem with it. I actually don't. But I do think that the attorney generally United States should probably be reading her email about this story and about this incredibly important political story. And let's talk about the fallout from all of this months and months later. Right? So Democrats see a target of opportunity. They were not like the people who were jumping on the Epstein 5. That was the right wing blogosphere during the last years of the Biden administration. But there's blood in the water. And Ro Khanna and others start saying, my God, like this isn't gonna be about Clinton, it's gonna be about Trump or we can make it about Trump or whatever. And they jump on the bandwagon, Swalwell and Khanna and a couple of other people and go absolutely nuts about it. Creating the bipartisan consensus that leads Thomas Massey, Thomas Massie, that leads to the passage of the law that releases Marjorie Taylor Greene.
- [48:54]
C
Yes, well, it's interesting that the Republicans who led this charge will not be in Congress Right. Come January.
- [49:03]
B
But let's talk about why that's merited and justified and not just because of Trump or because of Trump. They got crosswise of Trump. These files are released and you can go to the page where they are and look things up and type in your name and see if your name is there or whatever somebody else's name is there. And reputations have been destroyed and careers have been ended and people have been humiliated that we have no business knowing were involved in any of this. It's not our business that Leon Botstein of Bard had a relationship with Epstein or that Larry Summers had a relationship with Epstein or that that woman from Goldman Sachs had a relationship. Kathleen Rummeler, Kathleen Rummler had a relationship. None of them is accused of a crime. None of them is accused of being involved in anything untoward. All that came out of this was,
- [50:09]
C
well, they're accused of being involved in things that are untoward, but this is not the way. These documents are not supposed to be public and people's reputations have been ruined. Unfairly, unjustifiably. People have lost their jobs and livelihoods because of these things. And no one. None of these people. And I think the Kavanaugh hearings taught us that people have to speak up for themselves. Kavanaugh had a lot of women speak up for him, but it wasn't until he went before Congress and spoke up for himself. None of these individuals have spoken up and said, this is madness.
- [50:52]
B
Except for Alan Dershowitz. Alan Dershowitz is the only guy. From the beginning of these files, Alan Dershowitz has said, you say this stuff about me, and I am gonna sue your ass. And I didn't do anything, and don't you accuse me of doing anything. And I believe him because of the absolute aggressiveness with which he has pursued this matter for 15 years now. The reason that I say they're accused of doing something untoward because they had some kind of relationship with Epstein, and simply having a relationship with Epstein is untoward. And I suppose you could make the claim, it's fair to make the claim that a university president should not have an email relationship with a convicted sex offender, which is what Summers. And not that he was the university president then, but Botstein was and others. And they shouldn't have this relationship with this guy because they should keep their hands clean. But nobody's saying they did anything. This is their private business. You know, I mean, I don't know. I have 20 years of emails. I don't know that somebody didn't email me, that I emailed back who has since been convicted of a sex offense. You know, like that. I don't know. I mean, you could do this with. This literally is a thing where you could do this with anybody. Release private communications outside of any realm in which they are being considered for criminal prosecution or civil prosecution.
- [52:36]
D
The thing is, because the fundamental fact is that no one has found evidence of a sex ring blackmail operation here, that the Epstein obsessives had to go after other. You had to now get the next best thing, which was someone just talking to him or just corresponding with him. And of course, some people were very sleazy about it, but that became the best thing you were going to get,
- [53:20]
B
Unless you're on the right.
- [53:21]
D
And then the Democrats use this to go after Trump. It became their tool against Trump. All the right wingers who stuck with it, they went down the anti Semitic route. He's a Mossad agent blackmailing leaders for Israel and so on.
- [53:45]
B
Because, of course, that's where conspiracy theories inevitably go, particularly if they involve somebody who is of Jewish origin, and that is a real thing. Now, look, there's no question that this was one of the sexiest news stories of our time. I take that as a given because there's a reporter named Tara Palmieri was at Page Six, then she was at ABC News. She ended up starting her own podcast, news feed, whatever. And for a year, she has done nothing but Epstein three times a week. It's only happening because it's paying off. Tara would be doing something else if the story was. Wasn't earning her clicks and money in the form of advertising on her podcast and on her YouTube. I take that just simply as one piece of data that this story is undying because people have an indefatigable interest in it precisely because it's unresolvable, because the files don't have a smoking gun. If the files had a smoking gun, then the story would be, well, now we need to deal with the people who were doing in the sex ring. That there is no smoking gun means that there's a smoking gun and somebody destroyed it or it's still there and they're hiding it and it will never die. And I just think that this whole. The hoisting of Don Bongino and Kash Patel on the petard of their own completely opportunistic use of this story to gin up the rage and anxiety and paranoid fears of their audience in 2020, only to have to come out and say there's no there there in 2025 to serve their new master is a consummation devoutly to have been wished. Like, I couldn't wish it on anybody else more than I wished it on them. And I can't wish anything more on J.D. vance than that. He is trying. He was thinking that Tucker Carlson was going to be a venue of support, help and succor for Donald Trump in the sex scandal of the 21st century. And what political judgment is therein displayed? But I think the whole thing, the whole portrait, and that's Eliana. This is you having been on this beat like that room. David Warrington, the White House counsel, suggesting pardoning. Now, I suppose at a meeting where you're like, spitballing, you could say anything, you know, say anything, you know, where, you know, we're all clothed. We could. We, you know, this is something you do. You do that. You do the other thing that said,
- [57:15]
A
and in fairness to him, he was, you know, he was asked, like, he said, you probably. His point was you probably don't want to go to her because you'd have to give her something. She'd want something in return. And somebody's, well, what would you. What. What is there to give her? And she said, well, leg. And he said, well, legally, these are the options. I got the impression that he was kind of saying, like, this is why you stay away from it without saying that. Exactly.
- [57:44]
B
But, by the way, this also goes to, you know, Trump's disgusting behavior as president, because why are we even, like, entertaining the idea that he would pardon Gillon Maxwell? Because he's pardoned 2,000 people, pardon all the Jan6 rioters. He's been pardoning convicted congressmen. We don't even know why he's pardoning people. He pardoned George Santos. Like, he loves to pardon people. So why wouldn't he pardon Ghislaine Maxwell? This is a question would never have been raised for any previous president ever. You know, this kind of like Oprah Winfrey, look under your seat and maybe there's a pardon for you. And you get a car, and you get a car, and you get a car. So when that story came out last year that there was the possibility of a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell, it was credible. It wasn't like, come on, you people, stop already with your insane Trump derangement syndrome. There was nothing Trump derangement syndromey about the idea that he might trade a pardon for some kind of exoneration in any way, shape or form. She just didn't have anything to exonerate him with, I think. But I just think it shows that.
- [58:58]
D
I just want to add John to the pardon list. He pardoned the cocaine president of Honduras.
- [59:06]
B
I mean, just. Right. So I just think that what this reveals is the thing that people worried about about the second term, Trump's second term was he went through all of the conventional Republicans who were willing to work for him and tore them apart. And now he's basically ruined John Bolton's life for the crime of having told him the truth about things that he didn't want to hear and all of that. And what he's got here is this. B team, C team, D team. And this is what you get is a year of panic about the Epstein files. And let me just ask you this. What if they hadn't. What if they hadn't engaged on the subject? It was that Pam Bondi and Cash Patel and Don Bongino had made promises before they went into the administration to their. Well, particularly Patel and Bongino, to their podcast audiences that, you know, this is the most important thing, and they were gonna make sure that, you know, they, they were gonna do everything in their power to make sure that this stuff came out. Well, what if they basically said, you know what, I got more important fish to fry? But they didn't. Cuz they were still all consumed with their reputations and what they would do when the administration was over. And they didn't wanna get themselves crosswise of that audience. And they weren't in fact serving Trump's interest or let alone the national interest, let alone their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. So I just think it makes Trump look really bad that these are the people who are working for him. Except maybe Susie Wiles, who once again, as is often the case in these stories, comes across as like, like a sane person standing in the middle of a giant, you know, like in the middle of an insane asylum.
- [61:07]
D
There's also something else larger thematically here and you can relate it to Iran, even what's going on that has about Trump and the Trump administration and Trump's way of thinking, which is that there's such a confusion of offense and defense with him at all times, you know, going after people only to shift to being, having, winding up with a sort of attack on him that he's now, that he's now got to defend. And the muddle of the whole Epstein saga is that this was his offensive move that ended up sort of another box for him to get out of ultimately.
- [62:05]
B
So am I. Do you feel like I'm being unfa. I mean, in what way am I being unjust to the cast of characters in this story? Cause maybe I am. I'm painting with a very broad brush.
- [62:19]
D
No, I don't, I don't think you are at all.
- [62:21]
A
I mean, the only thing we can say is that the people who were on the outside pushing conspiracy theories and insisting there was something and then were given a place of power in the administration and therefore put in a position to know that there wasn't nearly what they said there was. And to say so was a, I think, an important teaching moment for the country. Right. In other words, I think that having Bongino and Patel say there really isn't anything here, and by the way, there's no child smuggling ring in the basement of your local pizza shop. You know, as the nod to the, you know, the comet ping pong, whatever it was, this was the thing that had started the idea that, you know, that, that there was this whole like elite sex trafficking and youth vamp, vampiricism, whatever you want to call it thing. Right. Having Them stand up there and say, like, well, this stuff isn't really going on. Was good. And it was a reminder that you have a different. That you can say anything. And I want. Want people to understand that you are outside the administration. If you are outside the knowledge circle and you are out and you are not under oath, you can say anything. And our politics is saturated by people saying absolutely anything and everything. And that the. The reaction I would hope this would cause would be the development of a healthy skepticism. I'm not. I'm not holding my breath for it, obviously, but. But you asked for the. You know, if there's one thing you can say about it positively, it is that this is what happens. It never happens that somebody gets into the administration and. And says, I found it. There actually was no moon landing. That never happens. Nobody gets into the administration and leaks a document that shows photos of aliens at Area 51. That never, never happens. The big conspiracy theories, they never happen. And so, sure, you could say mathematically they're due, like a baseball hitter who. Who hasn't gotten a hit in a while or something like that. But the point is that if you're playing the odds and you're out here and you're listening to all these podcasters talking at you, all this crazy stuff, be skeptical. Because the same people, you know, you don't have to trust some Democratic operative who gets into the White House and says, there's nothing here. Literally, the people who told you there was something there were shown the files and forced to say, oops, there's nothing there. The same people who are talking to you are, if they were made, if they were given the full facts, could not tell you what they're telling you right now. And I just hope that that's a kind of lesson, because it was appropriate that the specific people involved, literally those people, were the ones who said, there's nothing there.
- [65:49]
B
Okay, bud. I think the results last night in Maine demonstrate that your hope is illusory, by which I mean it is only in the atmosphere that has been created over the past 10 to 20 years that this could even be happening. That Graham Platner could even be elevated to being the Democratic nominee for Senate in Maine, with his personal record, with his personal history, with his personal behavior, with his Nazi tattoo and all of that, that there is this world in which that which is said about somebody, not only is it that people have too much credulity, but also they have too much dismissibility. Right? That's the Lindsey Fifield story. It's like oh, Lindsey Fifield said this about. She's a Republican. Therefore I don't have to believe her. And not only do I not believe her, but with the release of the story about her, I, Graham Platner, I'm gonna raise $250,000 more the day that the story comes out than I raised the day before the story came out. Because people are also totally willing to say, as long as the evidence or the testimony comes from somebody that I don't like or who doesn't have my ideological interests heart, not only am I not going to believe them, but I am going to double down on the guy who's on my side.
- [67:25]
C
Well, there's a Trumpian quality to him where he's drawing sucker from the attacks and where he's Teflon too. He said all these things that would be disqualifying. He's attacked veterans. There's Trumpian quality to that. Well, which is why I've thought for a long time and continue to believe the most politically toxic, most damaging thing about this guy is that he is a phony. He is a complete phony. He is an effed up rich kid who was expelled from Hotchkiss in the ninth grade and has failed at everything he's ever tried. And his daddy bought him a house. And he is cosplaying working class oyster farmer whose only client is his mommy. And that I think is something that lands in our current politics. It's really less that he said this or he said that or he was a bad boyfriend and much more that he is not the man he pretends to be.
- [68:54]
B
So you're saying that's Susan Collins, target of opportunity, not the defaming of Chris Kyle, not the toten cough, but that he is a fraud.
- [69:07]
C
Yes, 100%. And I think she appears to understand that she put out or the NRSC put out yesterday. What I think is an excellent ad that gets at this, calling him a hobby oyster farmer and Hotchkiss graduate. And what I think people in politics don't like and have never liked is a phony. And in thinking about, you know, Platner talks about what a jerk he was when he was drinking, but he still walks around with a beer in his hand. And it reminded me of the kind of scrutiny that Brett Kavanaugh got over. Did you ever get blackout drunk? How many beers did you have? Do you like beer? And Pete Hegseth had to say he'll never have a drop of alcohol on his table tongue. The Democrats were so concerned about this and Then in conversation with some of my colleagues yesterday, this is the same party that stood by Ted Kennedy when he left a woman dead. The bottom of the water. Democrats are no different. They've always been hypocrites on this.
- [70:16]
B
Didn't just stand by him. He won 13 states in the 1980
- [70:20]
C
Democratic president, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Graham Platner. There is a through line. You know, the Republicans did toss aside Roy Moore.
- [70:33]
B
David.
- [70:34]
A
There's a, there's a north, there's a northeast son of privilege through line, as you mentioned also.
- [70:41]
B
Yeah.
- [70:42]
C
And what Platner is, is, you know, a screwed up ne. Do well, spoiled rich kid.
- [70:50]
B
Anyway, we are.
- [70:52]
A
He's Occupy Wall street.
- [70:53]
C
Who. Who has a real chance of winning this Senate race.
- [70:57]
B
Yeah.
- [70:57]
C
And without it, the Democrats cannot take the Senate. I think it would be foolish for Republicans to think he is too damaged to win.
- [71:04]
B
Right. Look, just to close on where we began, this is a very critical, critical moment in 21st century history. And I don't want to, like, you know, be excessively melodramatic, but the President of the United States has been trying to balance his 2.1foot on peace and one foot on war. And the two boards that he's standing on in the water are starting to drift further and further and further apart. And he is trying desperately to maintain his balance on the two of them. And he has very little time left before he either jumps to one that's Eliana's. You know, like, if you're gonna turn tail and run, do it now. Or jumps back onto the one that says, we're gonna finish this off because he's gonna fall into the water and there's no one to catch him because the Democrats hate him uniformly. And half of the Republicans, at least, who thought he did something brave and noble and important by going into this war are going to be crushingly disappointed by the result and find it very hard, while not turning to the Democratic Party, to view him with the same respect or hope or whatever or amazement, however it is that they viewed him before. Because he will have screwed the pooch in a pretty novel way, in a way that no one has done this, has done it before, because in the end, if you want to analogize it to Syria and the Obama red line, in the end, Obama didn't fulfill his promise. And then the Russians took over, and then ISIS took over in half of Syria and Iraq, and then we had to go and kill off ISIS in Iraq and Syria in 2014 and 2015,
- [73:17]
A
and the Red line became a forever punchline.
- [73:21]
B
And became a forever punchline.
- [73:23]
A
Obama could never escape. He can't escape the shadow of if there's any one decision he can't escape the shadow of, it's that, right?
- [73:32]
B
So he, Trump did it. He did it. He went to war. And now, unilaterally, he is on the verge of losing the war. And it's all in his own head. The Iranians are not doing anything to convince anybody that they're gonna beat us. He's beating himself. So, you know, we are this week could be the week in which we get some real sense of what the direction of the next 25 years in terms of our foreign policy is going to be. And, you know, right now, there's reason not to be optimistic about the result, I think. And on that note, for Eliana, Seth and Abam John Pod Horitz, keep the camel burning.