11/19/25: Trump loses Epstein vote as files will be released, GOP terrified

Summary

The David Pakman Show

Episode: 11/19/25 — "Trump loses Epstein vote as files will be released, GOP terrified"
Date: November 19, 2025
Host: David Pakman

---

Overview

In this episode, David Pakman unpacks a historic Congressional vote compelling the release of Jeffrey Epstein's files, analyzes the political fallout for Donald Trump and the Republican Party, and dives into implications for victims. The episode also covers Trump’s controversial reception of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, a major blow to GOP redistricting efforts in Texas, and growing farmer backlash against Trump in South Dakota. A significant portion includes an interview with Eric Fudali, prominent civil rights attorney representing Epstein survivors.

---

Key Topics and Discussions

1. Congress Votes to Release Epstein Files

• [00:00–03:09]
  • The House (427-1) and Senate (by unanimous consent) voted to release the Epstein files, signaling overwhelming bipartisan support.
  • Only Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) voted no, citing concerns over privacy and criminal justice procedure.
  • Pakman criticizes Higgins' justification as legally and factually hollow, noting precedents for such disclosures and built-in protections in the bill.
• Notable Quote (Pakman):

  "Congress has the authority to require transparency when there are cases of overwhelming public interest. This is one of them. Especially when, remember, the criminal case is closed and the defendant is dead." ([05:39])

2. Skepticism About True Transparency

• [11:50–19:37]
  • Pakman cautions that, despite the vote, Republicans are unlikely to fully release unredacted files, suggesting multiple strategies to delay, sanitize, or control the narrative:
    • Release only the "safe" portions.
    • Preemptively shape right-wing media coverage to deflect blame.
    • Cherry-pick information to implicate Democrats.
    • Heavily redact Trump-adjacent or powerful Republican donor information.
    • Overwhelm with data dumps, or distract with other crises.
  • Notable Quote:

    "There is no planet in our solar system where Republicans just shrug and hand over the full Epstein files. Not at this point. Not with the stakes this high and not without a fight." ([14:30])

3. Trump Hosts Saudi Crown Prince Amid Scandal

• [20:41–34:19]
  • As the vote unfolds, Trump gives a lavish White House welcome to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, notorious for human rights abuses and the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
  • Trump defends his guest and attacks reporters who question the event or ask about Epstein files.
  • Notable Quotes:
    • Trump: "It's not the question that I mind. It's your attitude. I think you are a terrible, terrible reporter." ([26:09])
    • Pakman (reacting): "You know what it means to say a journalist's question is insubordinate? It means you don't like journalism." ([26:25])
    • Trump (on Khashoggi): "As far as this gentleman is concerned, he's done a phenomenal job. You're mentioning somebody that was extremely controversial. A lot of people didn't like that gentleman that you're talking about. Whether you like him or didn't like him, things happen. But he knew nothing about it, and we can leave it at that." ([30:38])

4. MAGA Mike Johnson (Speaker) and the GOP in Disarray

• [35:28–39:55]
  • Speaker Mike Johnson struggles to justify his reversal on the Epstein files vote, insisting the GOP has "always been for transparency."
  • Johnson questioned about possible redactions in the final release; seems evasive and cites statutory ambiguities.
  • Right-wing commentators like Benny Johnson criticize Mike Johnson’s stonewalling, signaling intra-party fractures.
  • Notable Moment:
    • Benny Johnson: "Enough, enough, enough. I've heard it... But the political reality is that the evils of what Jeffrey Epstein did... that's more important to destroy and for the American people to understand..." ([39:14])

5. Interview: Eric Fudali, Attorney for Epstein Victims

• Segment: [42:39–59:17]
  • Victims’ Perspective:
    • Fudali laments that victims are often sidelined while political battles play out.
    • Explains practical and psychological barriers to victims naming perpetrators, including fear of retaliation, financial intimidation (threat of lawsuits/countersuits), and lasting psychological trauma.
    • Notable Quote:

      "The new thing for powerful defendants is to sue — is to countersue, for defamation, for malicious prosecution... It is really stressful to be sued, especially if you don’t have millions to pay lawyers." ([44:52])

  • Trump and the Files:
    • None of Fudali’s 11 clients have directly accused Trump of abuse, but emails suggest a closer relationship with Epstein than Trump admits; Epstein seemed to believe he had leverage over Trump.
    • Fudali finds Trump's intense effort to suppress the files "baffling... and even suspicious."
    • Notable Quote:

      "Trump has spent a baffling amount of time and effort hiding these files. That leaves everyone, including the survivors, really sort of baffled and... suspicious." ([50:03])

  • Investigation, Trust, and the MeToo Context:
    • Fudali stresses that going public as a victim is not an easy or lucrative path, and lawyers like him do robust vetting ("trust but verify").
    • Observes varying public receptivity, mentioning MeToo backlash.
    • Notable Quote:

      "There is very little in it for a woman to publicly accuse a high-profile person... It's a terrible, inefficient, and unpleasant way to get money." ([52:17])

  • Epstein's Death:
    • While not a conspiracy theorist, Fudali expresses distrust in the official suicide narrative due to suspicious circumstances and a long pattern of special treatment.
    • Notable Quote:

      "Epstein continues to get special treatment beyond the grave, which is unlike any criminal I've ever seen in my life. He's still treated better than criminals who are alive." ([59:00])

6. Texas Gerrymandering Struck Down

• [61:37–64:55]
  • A federal court invalidates Texas' new congressional map as unconstitutional race-based gerrymandering, derailing GOP plans for extra seats in 2026.
  • California, by contrast, used a public referendum for its redistricting—its new map stands.
  • Pakman highlights the irony given GOP rhetoric about "Democrat cheating."
  • Notable Quote:

    "One of the most brazen election rigging schemes of the cycle gets crushed in a red state by a federal court for violating the Constitution... It’s not just embarrassing. This really goes to the core of how Republicans have kept power." ([63:20])

7. Farmers and Ranchers in South Dakota Turn on Trump

• [66:29–69:38]
  • South Dakota, deep Trump territory, sees a revolt among farmers over tariffs, collapsing prices, and beef import policies.
  • Multiple farmers interviewed harshly criticize Trump's trade moves, economic failures, and corporate favoritism.
  • Pakman interprets this as a sign of major trouble for Trump’s base.
  • Notable Quotes:
    • South Dakota Farmer: "We're going to have record yields and we're going to have less than break-even prices for our farmers." ([67:43])
    • Pakman: "Even Trump's base is now kind of realizing this is a fake, whole America first thing. It was never real. It was never for the workers... and it was definitely not for the ranchers and the farmers." ([69:15])

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments with Timestamps

• Pakman ([14:30]):
  “There is no planet in our solar system where Republicans just shrug and hand over the full Epstein files. Not at this point. Not with the stakes this high and not without a fight.”
• Trump ([26:09]):
  "It's not the question that I mind. It's your attitude. I think you are a terrible, terrible reporter."
• Pakman ([26:25]):
  “You know what it means to say a journalist's question is insubordinate? It means you don't like journalism.”
• Trump ([30:38]):
  “As far as this gentleman is concerned, he’s done a phenomenal job. You’re mentioning somebody that was extremely controversial. A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about... he knew nothing about it, and we can leave it at that.”
• Eric Fudali ([44:52]):
  "The new tool for powerful defendants is to countersue... They could pay attorneys for the rest of their lives to just continue to file frivolous lawsuits, nonsense lawsuits against victims."
• Eric Fudali ([50:03]):
  "Trump has spent a baffling amount of time and effort hiding these files... it's really sort of baffling, and I would even go as far to say suspicious as to why he has tried so hard to keep these files private."
• South Dakota Farmer ([67:43]):
  "We're going to have record yields and we're going to have less than break-even prices for our farmers."
• Pakman ([69:15]):
  "Even Trump's base is now kind of realizing this is a fake, whole America first thing. It was never real. It was never for the workers... and it was definitely not for the ranchers and the farmers."
• Eric Fudali ([59:00]):
  "Epstein continues to get special treatment beyond the grave, which is unlike any criminal I've ever seen in my life. He's still treated better than criminals who are alive."

---

Important Segments & Timestamps

• Congressional Votes on Epstein Files: [00:00–03:09]
• GOP Motives & Transparency Skepticism: [11:50–19:37]
• Trump Welcomes MBS – Media Fallout: [20:41–34:19]
• GOP Infighting over Redactions: [35:28–39:55]
• Eric Fudali Interview (Victim Representation/Implications): [42:39–59:17]
• Texas Gerrymandering & Contrast with California: [61:37–64:55]
• South Dakota Farmers on Trump: [66:29–69:38]

---

Summary

This episode delivers a rapid-fire, incisive analysis of the dramatic Epstein files vote and casts a skeptical eye on GOP claims of transparency. Pakman explores how Trump’s political maneuvering and Republican party infighting might still shield powerful interests, while reporters and victims face ongoing struggles for truth. The episode's heart—an interview with a victims’ attorney—grounds the political saga in the stories and fears of the abused. Elsewhere, Texas’ GOP is smacked down by the courts, and an unexpected rebellion brews among Trump’s traditional farmer base.

Listened or not, you’ll come away with a nuanced, critical, and often biting summary of one of the most consequential political and social news weeks of 2025.

Transcript

[David Pakman]

It is happening. Donald Trump has been humiliated on the Epstein files, the House and Senate voting to release them. And Republicans are now pretending they are the heroes of transparency when they are really not. Remember that Donald Trump couldn't stop it and Republicans mostly had to get in line and all but one ultimately did. It went to the Senate. The Senate passed this, but I believe that they have something planned. I don't think there is any way they are going to, without a fight, hand over the full, real, unedited Epstein files. Then it gets worse for Trump as he hosts one of the worst human rights abusers in the world, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, and puts on a full circus. A military flyover, red carpet, the whole thing. When reporters asked about Epstein and the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, Trump melted down and attacked the reporters. And meanwhile, speaker of the House MAGA Mike Johnson is realizing Trump threw him under the bus. I on this Epstein vote, MAGA is eating itself alive. And the panic is visible and palpable on the face of MAGA Mike Johnson on top of it. Texas is partizan, redistricting thrown out by a judge. But California did it right. So their stays, at least for now. And South Dakota farmers, a friendly pro Trump group, says they're done with them. We have now raised over $14,000 for feeding hungry people. Read about our fundraiser at David pakman.com/fundraiser and remember that the first payment on a new membership or on a gifted membership if you have one, goes directly to the charity Feeding America through Thanksgiving. David pakman.com/fundraiser to read all about it. What a program we have for you today. Well, it is happening, my friends. The House, House of representatives voted for 27 to 1 to release the Epstein files. It quickly went over to the Senate and the Senate voted via unanimous consent to do the exact same thing. Let's start with the moment in the House of Representatives where with only Republican Congressman Clay Higgins from Louisiana, this passed quickly and strongly and powerfully. Remember that almost all, all Republicans initially rejected this bill. But then things changed and it became clear that the bill must pass. I believe that this is not really the end of the Epstein story. We're going to get to that in a moment. But here is the moment where the House passed the bill.

[Eric Fudali]

On this vote, the yeas are 427.

[David Pakman]

The nays are 1/2 being in the affirmative.

[Eric Fudali]

The rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

[David Pakman]

All right, they did it. Then there was the question what's going to happen in the Senate? Are they going to pass it with no changes quickly? Are they going to pass it with no changes, but slowly? Will they have amendments or changes in a version that would pass but then be sent back to the House, or will the Senate reject it altogether? Well, it didn't take very long to figure it out. Minutes. An hour later, the Senate passing it via unanimous consent. I ask unanimous consent that when The Senate receives HR4405, the Epstein files Transparency act from the House, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. The bill be considered, read three times and passed with no intervening action or debate, and the motion to be to reconsider be considered, made and laid upon the table. Is there an objection? Without objection, so ordered. The Senate has now passed the Epstein bill as soon as it comes over from the House. So unanimous consent basically is a procedural shortcut where instead of going through debate and amendments and a roll call, vote, floor speeches and all of this stuff, it's basically, anybody have a problem with this? And even just remaining remaining silent means you don't. And it's a procedural shortcut, which they did even in advance of receiving the bill from the House. At some intervening point, the bill comes over from the House and then it will go to Donald Trump. Now let's go back to the House of Representatives where there was one no vote from Republican Congressman Clay Higgins. Clay Higgins put a post on Twitter. It's now called X. We used to call them tweets, now we call them excretions. And that's a very appropriate name for what he posted Clay Higgins posting about why he voted no, quote, I have been a principled no on this bill from the beginning. What was wrong with the bill three months ago is still wrong today. It abandons 250 years of criminal justice procedure in America as written. This bill reveals and injures thousands of innocent people, witnesses, people who provided alibis, family members. If enacted in its current form, this type of broad reveal of criminal investigative files released to a rabid media will absolutely result in innocent people being hurt. Not by my vote. The Oversight Committee is conducting a thorough investigation that has already released well over 60,000 pages of documents from the Epstein case. That effort will continue in a manner that provides all due protections for innocent Americans. If the Senate amends the bill to properly address privacy of victims and other Americans who are named but not criminally implicated, then I will vote for that bill when it comes back to the House. Well, that's not happening because the Senate passed it but more importantly, these aren't really valid reasons. Number one, Congress has released investigative files many times. 9, 11 Commission, Church Committee, JFK records, MLK files, COINTELPRO. There's a bunch of examples. None of it abandoned two hundred and fifty years of procedure. Congress has the authority to require transparency when there are cases of overwhelming public interest. This is one of them. Especially when, remember, the criminal case is closed and the defendant is dead. Epstein is dead. Nothing in the Epstein bill changes how investigations will go going forward. It just deals with records. In a case that is no longer active, courts routinely unseal files after cases end. The bill already distinguishes between those in the files who are accused individuals, those who are victims, and third parties. And it doesn't say that you have to dump every file with no redactions. In fact, every version of the bill says if there are minors named, there is redaction authority. If there are victims named, people not accused of wrongdoing, there is redaction authority. Confidential information that's not directly related to the crimes of Epstein. All of that stuff can be redacted. Clay also said a rabid media will hurt innocent people. That's a political talking point. At the end of the day, it's not a legal argument and it's not a factual argument. Media organizations already follow standards when reporting on redacted disclosures and FOIA releases. It's not special here. And more importantly, it's Congress, not the media, that controls the redaction process. So Clay should really be saying, I'm worried we won't properly redact, but the rabid media. Give me a break. And then finally, the pages are almost entirely unrelated to the powerful people who would have been involved. What I mean is, the redacted stuff that is, I'm sorry, the unredacted stuff that has already been released. Because he also argued we've released 60,000 pages that was like previous court filings, flight logs that were public, procedural documents acting like they've already released. It runs counter to the truth. What has not been released is arguably the most important material. The interview transcripts with the high profile people, FBI, 302 names redacted in prior prosecutions, who are alleged perpetrators, and sealed evidence related to coconspirators. So Clay's justification, if you can call it that, maybe excuse is better for not voting to release the Epstein files. Absolute and utter garbage. Now, maybe the most important thing for us to discuss, and so many of you wrote to me about it, is, is this really the victory we believe it to be? Let's dig into that. People are celebrating the Epstein vote in the House and Senate to release the files like this is over. And now here come the full files. And I want to be honest with you and Frank in my belief that this is not nearly over. I don't think they are going to go this easily and this quietly. We got the votes and that's good. Every Republican in the House and Senate except for Clay Higgins in the House voted yes, release the files. And a lot of people are acting like this is a massive win now, it is a step forward. But I'm telling you right now there is no planet in our solar system where Republicans just shrug and hand over the full Epstein files. Not at this point. Not with the stakes this high and not without a fight. They didn't suddenly grow a conscience. They didn't turn into truth seekers. They realized the political pressure was such that they had to vote to release. But they have a plan and they've always had a plan. Most, most likely. So if you think we are magically getting the full, real, unedited, unsanitized version of the files, I probably have bad news for you. Now, there's a few possibilities as to what they're planning here. Number one, the Tucker Carlson style, the dog ate my homework thing, they can release the files, but only the parts that are safe. You release some portion of the document, you say, listen, if there was other stuff, it was damaged or it was lost or it's still under review or there's a national security issue with it and then you say we've been transparent. All, basically every Republican voted to release it. Pam Bondi, Cash Patel released something we are calling the Epstein files. And that's it. Now, Republicans would like this move because it will let them take a victory lap. We voted to release the files and we release the files. Yet it still allows them to protect whoever it is they want to protect, presumably, at least to a degree, Donald Trump. Number two, there is the possibility of a preemptive narrative laundering of sorts. Before the files drop, you flood right wing media with some kind of news story. The files don't say what the left claims that they say. The files reveal that Democrats are really the perpetrators. Epstein was basically a CIA operation. So even though the files are coming out, you can't really believe anything that's in them. And so they might build a narrative before the files come out so that anything that's damaging will be rejected by their base, even if it's right there in black and white. And then you'll get, you know, Tucker and whoever, who, Jesse Watters, Hannity, Glenn Beck, the MAGA influencers will start shaping and molding public opinion around those talking points. Number three, and this is. These are not. They could do a combination of these things. Blame shifting to convenient Democrats. Republicans desperately need Democrats to pin all of this on. Doesn't matter if it's true, doesn't matter if it's embarrassing. So they need at least one, if not more names to point to. See, it wasn't us, it was them, it was Bill Clinton, it was Larry Summers, or what? They will cherry pick flight logs and emails or whatever and elevate that as the real story. And if they can weaponize the files against the Democrat, especially a high value one, that's a win and maybe it saves Trump. Number four, and this is the one we've been talking about for days, scrubbing and redacting anything that is Trump adjacent. And I mean, I'm just trying to be as frank with you as I can. I don't think there's any scenario where Trump, who was photographed with Epstein, who lived down the road from Epstein in Florida, partied with Epstein, evaluated young women and girls with Epste. I don't think that Trump would sign off on truly fully unredacted files. I think anything close to Trump gets blacked out, removed, lost, whatever. Anything tying Epstein's network to Republican mega donors who are Trump donors in the modern political political era, I think gets redacted or blacked out. Anything implicating Republican power players gets blacked out. They can still say we released it, but the names that really matter are going to magically vanish. And then there's a couple of other options. You know, release so much that the real story disappears. This is a classic in the legal world. During discovery, you just bury your opposition with paperwork. They're asking for a couple specific things. You give them 30,000 pages of stuff that will take months to go through, that will require them to hire an entire team to go through. Can I accelerate the process of reviewing that stuff? Maybe, but the idea would be overwhelm. Dump thousands of pages, unindexed, unorganized, and then see what happens. And then finally there's the distraction possibility. Drop the files in the middle of a White House crisis or a manufactured state of emergency or some scandal of sorts. And, and then finally, finally claim you can't really do it right now because now things are under investigation and I don't know legally how that would work. The House has voted to release the Epstein files. The Senate has voted to release the Epstein files. Trump is expected to sign off on releasing the Epstein files. But what if after doing all that, Pam Bondi goes, here's a little bit that we're going to release in 30 days. They have 30 days to do it. Don't know if they'll take the full 30. But there are so many files now that are relevant to ongoing investigations. It's no longer a closed investigation about a dead guy. We have active investigations, Trump told us. Investigate Larry Summers, investigate Bill Clinton. We can't release the files now. So here's the bottom line. I have about like a 1% belief that we're just going to get the files. 99% of me does not believe that the Republican Party suddenly wants justice for the Epstein victims. I don't think they care about the victims. I don't think they care about transparency. Save a few people. I believe that Thomas Massie cares about the victims. I don't, I don't, I don't doubt him. But that's not the reason why this ultimately passed with all but one of the Republican votes. They care about control. And you don't vote 99% in favor of releasing something this explosive while Trump is president unless you have a plan to protect yourself. Republicans have something up their sleeve. They're not giving up. There's no way they're saying, you got us. Here are the full files. Not a chance. Am I missing something? Agree, Disagree. Make sure to like this video on YouTube. Make sure to hit the subscribe button, but let me know in a comment or send me an email info@david pakman.com Let me know what you think they're going to do. We all know food is central to the holidays, so having good olive oil is crucial. Our sponsor, Graza Olive Oil has been my go to for years, which is why I reached out to them about becoming a sponsor. It's always fresh, never blended. The olives are always picked, pressed and bottled in the same season from the same source in Gian Spain. You can even see the harvest date on the bottle. Graza makes three high quality oils for everything you're cooking this time of year. Sizzle for everyday cooking, roasting and sauteing. Drizzle as a bright, punchy finishing oil for salads, bread, pasta, anything that needs a lift and frizzle is their high heat oil for baking, grilling and frying. Graza oils taste clean, vibrant, super fresh. I love the bottles. They look great in my kitchen. And Graza's gift sets make an easy and perfect holiday gift. People actually use this and the packaging is really nice. Go to graza.co/David P and use code David p to get 10% off. The link is in the description. Holiday hosting can be stressful. Don't I know it. You should see what happened to my last Hanukkah brisket. But Wild Grain makes it so that you've got it handled. Our sponsor, Wild Grain is the subscription box that brings bakery quality breads, pastries and pastas straight to your freezer, which you can then bake from frozen in just 25 minutes or less. I had friends over. I served apple pie bites and cranberry pecan rolls from Wild Grain. Huge hit. People thought I made them from scratch. Did I disabuse them of that notion? I don't know. That's a question for a different day. I love how everything turns out consistently. Every loaf and roll is perfectly browned, soft inside, smells great. They also have plant based and gluten free options so everybody's covered. Wild Grain is one of those things you try once and you think why didn't I start doing this sooner? Whether you're gifting it or keeping it for yourself, Wild Grain makes it easy to have something special on the table at any time. Get $30 off your first box plus free croissants for life at wild grain.com/pacman the link is in the Description the David Pakman show remains primarily an audience supported program. If you like the work that we do, I would love for you to support the show. The primary and most direct and efficient way to do that is to simply get a membership on my website. Join pacman.com or to get a Substack Premium subscription at substack.david pakman.com if you prefer audio visual bonus content, the website membership is for you. If you prefer written this is me writing on a keyboard. If you prefer written bonus content, the Substack Premium subscription might be right for you. And if you like both then maybe you get one of each. Join packman.com substack.david pakman.com all new memberships this month. Payments donated to the hunger charity feeding America. About 15,000 raised so far by you, all through memberships that will go directly to them. Which I think is absolutely phenomenal. Absolutely phenomenal. Check it out. Email in if you have any questions. Donald Trump did the unthinkable with one of the world's worst yesterday as the House was getting ready to pass the Epstein Bill and subsequently the Senate. Donald Trump welcomed with open arms and with kid gloves. The brutal Saudi Arabian leader, the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Trump's maybe most disgusting act yet. And Trump really reminding us and showing us what he really is, which is an authoritarian autocrat, dictator wannabe at heart. They did a huge circus, some call it a dog and pony show for the brutal human rights denying autocrat. Here is Donald Trump greeting Mohammed bin Salman. Look at this crap. Anyway, I think you get the picture. The guy responsible for the cold blooded assassination. It's not even really a murder. It's an assassination. It was planned in advance. I mean it's all, it's a killing, it's a murder, it's an assassination. Of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi welcomed with open arms and even welcomed with a flyover. Here is Fox News description of it. A welcome like no other, I will say. And hard to think of someone less deserving of such a welcome from a country that is at least putatively ostensibly Democratic. Trump with a little back rubbing.

[News Anchor / Reporter]

Now that's a welcome. Alongside Ambassador Michael Walsh. Your immediately thought immediate thoughts of a flyover and a welcome like no other that we've seen at our White House for the leader of Saudi Arabia.

[Eric Fudali]

Well, Harris, you're the, you're the daughter of a colonel. You know, I'm a retired Green Beret.

[David Pakman]

And nothing about this guy's a brutal dictator. Nothing about, look at how dissidents and journalists and women and how they're treated and Saudi nothing. What a welcome. What a welcome. Here is another moment of the flyover.

[News Anchor / Reporter]

Visiting the White House today and a lot of topics to be covered. I'm so appreciative of the U.S. ambassador. Waltz with me at this moment. Look, we've seen so much news and that in that part of the world with a resolution last night, President Trump's 20 point plan for peace in the Middle East. You're coming. Quick thoughts as we watch this together.

[David Pakman]

Well, the Arabs, the Saudis in particular getting the point is they treat this like this is normal. They treat this like this is acceptable. And of course it isn't. Just one more moment from this. Here is Donald Trump showing Mohammed bin Salman the auto pen picture that he put up for Biden's portrait at the White House. I mean, just sick stuff. You almost get the sense Trump is more proud of the auto pen picture of Biden than of his kids. It's really kind of sad Office for.

[News Anchor / Reporter]

The traditional bilateral taking questions from reporters. We anticipate both leaders will take questions. We will cover that live as it's coming up. This Visit is clicking along pretty quickly now with some unexpected stops along the way. But the Oval Office is just a few steps away from where they are now. So we, we may hold for just a second while they walk through the door here. Let's talk about just briefly.

[David Pakman]

So listen, we're going to get to what was actually said in the Oval Office about the killing of Jamal Khaji Khashoggi. Good for some reporters. They asked Trump about it. They asked the Crown Prince about it. We're going to get into the detail, but the detail is secondary to the big picture. And we have a president who has debased the democracy of the United States by alienating us from our democratic Western allies, people who have fair elections, people who have countries with a free press. And we wonder, why are we more distant from the UK and from Canada and from France and all of these countries that are our historical allies? Well, you need only look at how Donald Trump is enamored with Putin and how Trump is enamored with Viktor Orban. And Trump is enamored with Kim Jong Un. And Trump is just smitten with the Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman. They could have said anything in the Oval Office, anything short of we completely denounce ourselves. Right. And it would. It just. They could have said anything and it wouldn't change that. The optics and the fact that this is even happening is a disaster beyond disasters. But they didn't actually do the right thing in the Oval Office. It only got worse when the Crown Prince and brutal civil rights denying Saudi leader Mohammed bin Salman sat down in the Oval Office with Donald Trump. Trump couldn't control himself. Trump attacked a reporter when the reporter asked about the Epstein files. Trump attacked a reporter when a reporter asked about, wait a second, this is the guy, Mohammed bin Salman, who orchestrated the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Trump is cracking under the pressure. He defended the killing of an American by Saudis. And I have never seen anything like this. Let's get right into it. Trump asked, you could release the Epstein files. Why are you waiting for Congress to do it? And Trump goes, I don't like your attitude.

[Donald Trump]

That pretty good.

[Fallon Gallagher]

Mr. President.

[News Anchor / Reporter]

Why wait for Congress to release the Epstein files?

[David Pakman]

Why not just do it now?

[Donald Trump]

It's not the question that I mind. It's your attitude. I think you are a terrible, terrible reporter. It's the way you ask these questions. You start off with a man who's highly respected asking him a horrible, insubordinate and just a terrible question.

[David Pakman]

You know what it means to say A journalist's question is insubordinate. It means you don't like journalism. It means you don't want to answer a real question. Trump loves questions like, how did you come up with the brilliant story strategy to welcome all of these dictators into the White House? Did that occur just to you, sir? That's what Trump wants.

[Donald Trump]

And you could even ask that same exact question nicely. You're all psyched up. Somebody psyched over at abc. They're going to psych it. You're a terrible person and a terrible reporter. As far as the Epstein files is, I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. I threw him out of my club many years ago because I thought he was.

[David Pakman]

That. That was actually a lie now.

[Donald Trump]

Sick pervert. But. And I guess I turned out to be right. But you know who does have Bill Clinton? Larry Summers, who ran Harvard, was with him every single night, every single weekend. They lived together. They went to his island many times. I never did.

[David Pakman]

They had kids together. I mean, just make it all up.

[Donald Trump]

Andrew Weissman. I heard all these guys were friends of his. You don't even talk about those people. You just keep going on the.

[David Pakman]

They aren't president. They can't just snap their fingers today and release the files the way Trump can seen files.

[Donald Trump]

And what the Epstein is, is a Democrat hoax to try and get me not to be able to talk about the $21 trillion that I talked about today. It's a hoax. Now I just got a bit little report and I put it in my pocket of all the money that he's given to Democrats.

[David Pakman]

All right, so now he goes into propaganda. Now he goes into propaganda. Trump's first instinct when asked a substantive journalistic question. You have the power. Why make the House and Senate go through all this? Just release the files if you want transparency. You're a terrible reporter. Terrible, terrible reporter. We continued, and it only got even worse. Trump was asked another really good question. You're doing business with Saudi Arabia while president. Is that a conflict? And by the way, she also asks Mohammed bin Salman about his orchestration of the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Trump interrupts and goes, who you with? Fake news. Fake, fake news.

[News Anchor / Reporter]

Mr. President, is it appropriate, Mr. President, for your family to be doing business in Saudi Arabia while you're president? Is that a conflict of interest? And your royal highness, the US Intelligence concluded that you orchestrated the brutal murder of a journalist. 911 families are furious that you are here in the Oval Office. Why should Americans trust.

[Donald Trump]

Who are you with?

[News Anchor / Reporter]

And the same to you, Mr. President.

[Donald Trump]

Now, who are you with?

[News Anchor / Reporter]

I'm with ABC News, sir.

[Donald Trump]

You're with who?

[David Pakman]

ABC News, sir.

[Donald Trump]

Fake News. ABC Fake News. One of the worst. One of the worst in the business. But I'll answer your question. I have nothing to do with the family business. I.

[David Pakman]

I don't. I mean, like, we could spend time on. I have nothing to do with the family business. I don't think it's worth it. I'll just remind you to include it that Trump's putting his businesses in a trust where he doesn't have anything to do with them. You think he doesn't know exactly what they're doing? Trump still makes money from those businesses.

[MAGA Mike Johnson]

Businesses.

[David Pakman]

What he knows officially and what his kids tell him, well, we don't know. But Trump's still making money from those businesses, and he knows that he's making money. Money. So that's a ridiculous defense. But look at Trump, eager to jump in, to deflect and run interference on what is maybe one of the most important journalistic questions that could be asked when these two people come together. Sir, you are welcoming this man as if he is someone to be applauded, someone that is even tolerable in a democracy. Yet he orchestrated the brutal murder of a journalist who, by the way, was American. And you're just looking the other way now. This continued, and unfortunately, it got worse because Trump sort of ends up defending Mohammed bin Salman in the killing of Jamal Khajogi. Jamal Khashoggi. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this from any American president on any issue ever. Ever.

[Donald Trump]

As far as this gentleman is concerned, he's done a phenomenal job. You're mentioning somebody that was extremely controversial. A lot of people didn't like that gentleman that you're talking about. Whether you like him or didn't like him, things happen. But he knew nothing about it, and we can leave it at that. You don't have to embarrass our guests by asking a question.

[David Pakman]

Now, hold on a second. Hold on a second. How many lies did Trump just squeeze into 18 seconds. First of all, Trump goes, well, Jamal Khashoggi was killed, but he was controversial. A lot of people didn't like him. It sounds like a justification for what happened. And then when Trump says, this gentleman, Mohammed bin Salman, didn't have anything to do with it. Trump's own CIA determined while Trump was president that the guy sitting just a foot and a half from Trump orchestrated the entire thing. Do people realize how absolutely insane this is? Trump is sort of suggesting that Khashoggi, he kind of had it coming. I mean, he was doing journalism, he was controversial. And then, of course, Trump says, I know nothing about it, but he had nothing to do with it. But it's Trump's own CIA that said, oh, no, no, Mohammed bin Salman had a lot to do with it. So once again, Trump is in the position of saying, I believe a foreign dictator over my own intelligence. What a disgrace. Mohammed bin Salman did address this briefly and said, it was a mistake when we killed Khashoggi. He doesn't say, we generalists. It's really painful to hear, you know, anyone that been losing his life for, you know, no real purpose or not in a legal way. And it's been painful for us in Saudi Arabia. We've did all the right steps of investigation, etc. And so, yeah, Mohammed bin Salman investigated his own killing of Jamal Khashoggi and determined that, yep, a mistake was made. But that's kind of it. It was regrettable, the Arabia. And we've improved our system to be sure that nothing happened. Yeah, they, they've. We've improved the system. I am no longer allowed to order people killed. I mean, guys, I've never seen anything like this. And Trump is just nodding. They've welcomed this man to the Oval Office. That. And it's painful and it's a huge mistake, and we are doing our best that this doesn't happen again. Mr. President, I'm going to do everything I can for this not to happen again, which I did. I ordered the killing, and we are really going to try hard so that whatever circumstances it surfaced, it doesn't happen again. All right, then, you know, Trump does his usual stuff where he jokes around, I should have asked Mohamed for some ballroom money for the 300 and whatever million dollar Ballroom, but we're not taking foreign money.

[Donald Trump]

And it's going to be beautiful. It's, it's, you know, it's a very popular thing, what we're doing. And by the way, no government funds. It's all put up private money. All, all private money. And in the case, I think it's. There's a restriction on foreigners. Otherwise I could have asked you just for a check, but there's a. And it's.

[David Pakman]

And then finally, by the way, when has foreign money not being allowed ever stop Trump? It hasn't a really weird moment. Trump doing weird, kind of like hand games with Mohammed bin Salman. There's like a fist bump, handhold. Just kind of weird. Everything Trump does is Weird.

[Donald Trump]

And Trump doesn't give a fist. Fist pump. I grabbed that hand. I don't give a hell where that hand's been. I grabbed that.

[David Pakman]

I don't give a hell where that hand's been. If I had told you when Trump came down the escalator 10 years ago that we would be witnessing such a regretful moment in American history, such as what we saw in the Oval Office, I don't think anybody would have believed me. I don't think I would have believed it myself. Donald Trump has put MAGA Mike Johnson and many Republicans in a terrible position. We now know that the House and Senate have voted to release the Epstein files. The DOJ will now have 30 days to do it. But MAGA Mike Johnson seems to slowly have realized, Trump screwed me. Trump screwed me. Because for a while, we were alongside Trump against transparency. And then now, all of a sudden, as some started to rebel, we really ended up screwed because we have to explain why we have changed our minds. MAGA Mike Johnson tries to dance around this by going, there is no reversal here, no reversal at all.

[News Anchor / Reporter]

Do you acknowledge that by voting for this, that that is a reversal for you, that you could have put this.

[Eric Fudali]

On the floor months ago?

[News Anchor / Reporter]

You might not have even needed to have a discharge petition if you had.

[Eric Fudali]

Supported it months ago?

[MAGA Mike Johnson]

No, it's not a reversal. As I just explained, we had big problems with the discharge from the moment it was filed. We talked with the authors. There was lots of people that went and pleaded with them to fix it so that everybody could be together because we've been for maximum transparency. But again, there's a reason you have rules and processes here, here to ensure that this is not done haphazardly. And I, I was not satisfied with that. But I've been for maximum transparency for the very beginning. We wanted the process to play out.

[News Anchor / Reporter]

So, yes, I understand where you're coming from with your concerns with the discharge position. I also understand your want for transparency in this case. You've been very clear on both those fronts for weeks. So is the reason why you're now deciding to vote for this resolution because President Trump directly said Republicans should vote for this? This has been your position.

[David Pakman]

In case you can't hear the question, what she's saying is, are you only now for this because Trump said you should do it?

[News Anchor / Reporter]

You made it clear you weren't in support of this.

[MAGA Mike Johnson]

If.

[David Pakman]

If.

[MAGA Mike Johnson]

If the. If and when the discharge reached the 218th signature, it'll be forced, and the forcing mechanism here prevents the very deliberate professional careful manner in which Congress is supposed to do this. I.

[David Pakman]

So listen, he realizes Trump screwed him. They were on Trump's side and then Trump reversed because of the political pressure. And now they all have to go and say, I guess we're voting for it. But remember, I believe they have something up their sleeve. I don't think that this is really everything that we believe it to be. Maga Mike Johnson was asked about possible redactions or elements being withheld if and when the files are ultimately released. Here is what Mike Johnson said, the substance here.

[News Anchor / Reporter]

Reading through the bill, though, I guess I'm confused because the bill and I.

[David Pakman]

Apologize, the questions are hard to hear. The question is, are these things going to be redacted potentially.

[News Anchor / Reporter]

Specifically says the Attorney General may withhold a redact portion related to child sexual abuse materials as defined in the law. Anything jeopardizing federal investigations specifically says it can withhold contain anything contrary personal identifiable information of victims, personal medical files.

[Eric Fudali]

We need.

[News Anchor / Reporter]

The survivors are comfortable with that. All of these, these things are actually in this bill.

[MAGA Mike Johnson]

They're not. Let me give you an example and we could, we could be up here for a long time. I'll litigate it with you because I brought all this stuff. All right. Okay. So, so the first one you mentioned, okay, so here's, here's the, here's hrs581. This is the discharge. Okay. It says on page five, redact anything that depicts or quotes, quote, depicts or contains child sexual abuse material. CSAM, as defined under 18 USC 2256. Okay. All right. So you go to 18 USC 2256 definitions of the chapter. Nowhere in this section. Okay, Go look it up. All right. Does it contain the definition of child sexual abuse material? So I used to litigate federal cases and I would challenge statutes in court. Okay. Language is very important and very precise. If it's not listed here and this were to become law, child sexual abuse materials are not included. They're not included for redaction. Which means the Attorney general and someone there, if they interpret the discharge in.

[David Pakman]

The statute, you get the game that he. I'm so sick of this guy. The game he's playing as well. Because see, Sam, child sexual abuse material isn't defined. Then it's up to the AG to determine what might come out. The Brad stuff might come out. We're not sure. We don't like the way that we did this.

[MAGA Mike Johnson]

This.

[David Pakman]

You know who's sick of this guy? Our old friend Benny Johnson here is right wing provocateur of Sorts. Benny Johnson slamming Mike Johnson for stonewalling the release of the files. They are turning on each other by just.

[Benny Johnson]

All right, all right, enough, enough, enough. I've heard it. I'm done with it. I've heard it. I'm sick of it. Honestly, I'm sick of it. Life's not fair. You know, like sometimes there are just like unfortunate political realities. Things snowball and life's just not fair. And really terrible stuff has happened to me in the public arena and so on and so forth every single day. Like just, you know, like, just check the comment section. It's just like this is just the world that you play in, right? And it. And people get bulldozed and it sucks sometimes and it's just not fair. But there are also political realities. And the political reality of the current moment is that the evils of what Jeffrey Epstein did and the protection around Jeffrey Epstein, the racket of government protection around this international pederist that let him out of jail, that gave him a slap on the wrist, that gave him his own wing of the prison, that gave everybody immunity around him, that allowed him to operate and abuse these women, that's more important to destroy and for the American people to understand what that was.

[David Pakman]

All right, you get the picture now. I don't even believe this shit, to be honest. I don't even think Benny Johnson really cares about the substance. I think Benny Johnson realizes that his audience is overwhelmingly made up of the Epstein truthers or whatever, the people that used to include Cash Patel before he was director of the FBI. And Benny Johnson knows where his bread is buttered. And Benny Johnson knows there is no credible way for him to now go. No, don't release the files. It might. Who the hell knows what he happens to be right. We're sick of these MAGA Mike Johnson and others. But I don't even think Benny Johnson's doing it for the right reason. MAGA Mike Johnson, no relation to Benny Johnson, realizes Trump screwed us, but he's still loyal because he's truly part of the cult. You've probably heard me mention AG1 before. It's part of my morning routine. Just gives my nut daily boost. The team behind AG1 has now created a nighttime option. It's called AG Z. It's just a drink designed to help you unwind before bed and get better rest on the nights that you need it. AGZ is non habit forming. It's a blend of herbs, adaptogens and minerals. No melatonin. Each serving provides 250mg of highly bioavailable magnesium that's over half of your daily value. Along with other carefully selected ingredients. The idea here is support, relaxation, improve sleep quality. Very simple concept. Just like AG1 helps you get more out of your day, AG Z can help you get more out of your night. If you want a tool you can reach for when you want to calm your body and your mind, recharge and wake up. Ready? This could be it. Go to drink ag1.com/pacman Get a free frother with your first purchase of AG Z. The link is in the description. Today I'm going to be speaking with Eric Fudali, who is a civil rights attorney currently representing 11 survivors of Jeffrey Epstein. Eric, great to have you on. I appreciate your time.

[Eric Fudali]

Thanks for having me, dude.

[David Pakman]

So listen, I have said from the start that in all of these conversations about is Trump in the files or isn't he? And are they doctored or aren't they? And who else is on the list and how are the vote? The victims have really not been a part of the story. It's been about the political implications. It's been about the political machinations in Congress and what's Pam Bondi up to. But this is a story primarily of victimization. And I wonder if you believe, see or hope that it's finally now becoming more about the victims.

[Eric Fudali]

Yeah, I think so, and I think that's well said. You know, the real struggle with the victims, though, is this is nothing new. They've been sort of used as pawns, disregarded wronged by, you know, administration after administration, Department of Justice after Department of, of Justice, I mean, dating back literally to the 90s. So unfortunately, while, yeah, I certainly think the victims have sort of been forgotten in this, or at least maybe you know, being used a bit, you know, for, you know, political fodder or political gain. It's nothing new and it's really unfortunate. I do have sort of seen a shift, especially, you know, as the people in the House and the congressman in the House have really sort of advocated for the release of these files. There's been rally after rally, press conference after press conference. There has been some momentum for the victims. And I do feel like in the media, you know, at least from my perspective, they have been giving a bit of a voice, especially more so than they have in the past.

[David Pakman]

Let me start with a question that I suspect you just may not be able to answer. But if you can't, I would want to know why, which is a lot has been made of why don't the victims just say, hey, here's the perpetrators. This is the list. This is who I was victimized by. And the answer that. The answer that I've been reading and being given is, well, they can get sued and they will get sued. And a lot of these, it would be a revictimization, it would be outside of what they can afford, etc. Is that a valid reason? And can you tell us whether any of the 11 victims you represent have pointed the finger at Trump or anybody else whose names we'd recognize?

[Eric Fudali]

It's a very fair question. And, you know, the short answer is, yes, that is it. But I'm happy to explain a little more. You know, I would say. And this actually sort of dates back to the Johnny Depp defamation trial, if you recall that following his victory there, I noticed. And I represent victims of sexual abuse, you know, sort of all over the place. I have. I represent accusers of Diddy, I represent accuser of Kanye West. You know, I represent victims against very powerful people, you know, not just Jeffrey Epstein. And the new sort of tool, the new thing, you know, the shiny tool in the tool bag, if you will, for powerful defendants is to sue is to countersue, countersue for defamation, countersuit for malicious prosecution. You know, they have enough money in the world that they could pay attorneys for the rest of their lives to just continue to file frivolous lawsuits, nonsense lawsuits against victims. And it's really debilitating, it is really stressful to be sued, especially if you're someone who doesn't have the millions or billions of dollars to, you know, to pay lawyers to defend you or to pay, you know, the prospect of a judgment against you. So that really is a deterrent. It's also sort of the, you know, fear. It's not just defamation lawsuits. It's also real feel, also real fear. Something that's been lost with, I think, in a lot of the coverage of the Epstein is not. It wasn't just the abuse of Epstein. It was the fear he put into his victims. I mean, implied threats and very real threats to them and their families. He would show them pictures of him and Donald Trump and all these other powerful people around the world and would say, you know, you better stay quiet or your family will be in trouble. I mean, it wasn't. He didn't mince words. So they've been truly afraid. I mean, even beyond the grave. I've spoke to some of my clients who still, you know, see him outside their door sometimes or see him outside the window at night and are still, you know, terribly afraid of him, his circle, the type of people that he surrounded himself with, the type of powerful people. You know, you sort of see one things in these emails you see is like how he wielded his power. He would you, I mean he used his power for gain and to intimidate and to blackmail. And that was no different than how he treated his victims. So I think it's a yes, fear of defamation, fear of lawsuits, but be also like true fear for their, their lives.

[David Pakman]

Are you willing to say or able to say whether any of the 11 victims you represent without saying who have pointed the finger at Trump?

[Eric Fudali]

I am willing to say and the answer is no. I think another thing that perhaps is underreported is we keep hearing about this list and I certainly believe, and I certainly agree that if we do see all the files, we will see people who abused along with Jeffrey Epstein. But I think one thing the public doesn't truly understand, David, is that Epstein primarily trafficked to himself. He was averaging from my investigation about three, three girls a day for decades. I mean, he was a true addict and a true monster. So, you know, you say, well, who is, you know, we hear about this trafficking, this trafficking network, these thousands or so victims, you know, who was he trafficking to? It was primarily himself, I do believe, and we've certainly heard reports and allegations of other high profile individuals who may have abused along with him. But I think it's important to remember that he was really, I mean, primarily trafficking to himself. And then I think he would invite, you know, those in his close circle to join along with him. And of course we've heard reports of him then using that as gain or political or blackmail or something along those lines. But it's, I think that's important. Remember the wide, you know, the vast array of women he abused himself.

[David Pakman]

OK, so the 11 victims you represent have not pointed the finger at Trump based now, not on your conversations with your clients, but based on the emails that have been released and the totality of everything that's public. Do you have an opinion as to whether especially what came out in the last seven days does suggest involvement from Trump or do you believe from what you've seen that it's totally plausible that, that the answer is no?

[Eric Fudali]

I mean, I guess that means that depends on what you mean by involvement, right? I mean, it is very clear that Donald Trump and Jerry for Epstein were very close friends. They were associates, they partied together. I mean, we have a video of them leering at women and you know, she looks hot. I mean, you know, women. So if you're asking, you know, involvement, do I believe Donald, there's going to be evidence that Donald Trump sexually abused a minor girl? I. I can't say. You know, I cannot say the answer to that. Certainly, I would say the new emails suggest that their relationship went further than Donald Trump has admitted or has admitted publicly. Clearly, they were very close friends and associated a lot. I mean, you know, there's evidence of them being at the house for a long time, I believe, with a redacted individual who may have been Virginia New Jew Frey. There's been reports there's this dog that didn't bark. Certainly Jeffrey Epstein appears from the emails, thought he had something on Trump. You know, there's that email with the journalist where he's talking about, like, how he could bury Trump. I'm paraphrasing, you know, how he could use this or use that if he does win or if it looks like he's about to win. So, you know, I can say, you know, based on my, my review of the emails. And again, they need a lot of context, which is why we need the full files. There's certainly something beyond, I think, what Trump has admitted to. How far that goes, I do not know. The other thing I will say is Trump has spent an enormous amount of time, a suspicious amount of time and effort hiding these files.

[David Pakman]

Right.

[Eric Fudali]

You know, this, this one, I don't really buy this new 180. I think it's just sort of political theater that he can protect himself for whatever, which way these votes go. But he has just spent a baffling amount of time and baffling amount of effort and public effort really trying to suppress these files. And I think that leaves everyone, including myself, including the survivors, including most Americans who want this, a bipartisan issue, want the files released. It's really sort of baffling, and I would even go as far to say suspicious as to why he has tried so hard to keep these files private.

[David Pakman]

Let's zoom out a little bit and just talk about representation of victims of sexual assault, etc. As you do. There's been this kind of debate in, in both law enforcement and legal circles over the last, you know, however many years, including through the MeToo movement of trust the women and then the counter from some who say, wait, so just like, you show up and police or a lawyer, like, you just accept whatever you're told and you start suing or whatever. So I want to talk to you a little bit about, you know, my approach has always been there is a lot to overcome just to go and make a claim, right, that if you go to police or you go to a lawyer, I think most victims or alleged victims would intuitively know that they are exposing themselves, they're exposing themselves potentially criminally when it comes to false reports. They're exposing themselves to further harassment, they're exposing themselves to criminal, I'm sorry, to smear campaigns, to not being believed, etc. So my approach has been it's not that you just uncritically accept everything with no inquiry, but it's that you acknowledge that a claim has already passed some minor standard, which is I'm now willing to say this publicly and then it's a sort of trust but verify. I assume that police and lawyers should do, ask questions or whatever. But, but I don't know, I've not been in those rooms, neither with law enforcement nor lawyers. So let me turn it over to you. Who's the expert? What level of analysis, vetting or verification does someone in your position do when someone comes to you with an allegation?

[Eric Fudali]

That's a really, really good question. And I'll start with sort of a misconception I think the public has that there is very little in it for a woman to publicly accuse a high profile person of, of sexual assault or sexual abuse or sex trafficking. If a female or if a victim wanted to just get money from someone, they would threaten a lawsuit and try to get a settlement, right? So I think people think, oh, someone made up, someone filed a lawsuit, that must mean they're just out. They're in it for the publicity, they're in it for money. No, there are much better ways to privately make, you know, get a settlement and get money from the person who, you know, allegedly sexually assaulted you than filing a public lawsuit or going public with it. That's one of the worst ways to make money from it because once you go public, it's out there and there's no more leverage and getting a quick settlement. And now they're just, you're just going to get the ridicule. The defendant is going to defend and tear apart your personal life and depose your mother and your, and your boyfriend and your ex boyfriend and your brother and your psychiatrist and your therapy. Right? So it is a very unpleasant thing and a very daunting thing for a woman to come forward. So I think that's something that I think I wish the public learned. Because anytime you hear one of these public lawsuits like, oh, she's in it for Money. Oh, she's in it for publicity. Oh, she's in it to make a name for herself. It's a terrible way for. It is a very inefficient and unpleasant way to. For a woman to get money, a victim to get money. What I do, I mean, you know, every case is different, of course, but there is a very strict, of course, vetting process that we have to go through as lawyers. We put our own reputations on the line, especially a firm like myself where it's the Bloom firm, especially with us, where we take on such high profile and are very public about our cases and do these interviews. My partner, Lisa Bloom, does as well. We're very out there in the media there. We have an even higher level, I think, than most attorneys have to have when they're taking on these cases. So, you know, it's basic vetting. It's. It's interview after interview. I'll do an interview. Another associate will do an interview. My partner, Lisa, will then do another interview. We'll investigate. You know, did you text anyone at the time? We're always looking for sort. Sort of, you know, contemporaneous complaints. You know, this. Something happened in 2019. Did you tell anyone in 2019? Right. Or you just. The first time you're telling someone, have you been telling a therapist since then? Did you go to the police? Did you confront that? So, you know, speaking to other individuals? So I would say there's no, like, correct formula that I would say, you know, this is how you vet a potential victim. This is how you vet a case before you file it. It's case by case. But I think the important thing to take away from it is that you vet it. You have to vet it. Of course. I think you like what you said, trust and verify. I love that. I think I'm going to start using it.

[David Pakman]

That's a. It is a Reagan thing. Just so you know. I don't know how you feel about using Reagan phrases.

[Eric Fudali]

Never mind. But it is. It is good. Trust and verify. Like, I trust when a victim comes forward. To me, you always have to be cautious because there are, you know, bad eggs. And I think one of the worst things of the, you know, the MeToo movement was an amazing thing. But I think, you know, you started to see people take advantage, like any movement you're going to see. And I think that led to some, you know, me too, backlash. And often when I'm in a jury trial, you know, I'm doing voir d and I'm interviewing the jurors you know, the first question I always ask is, what are your thoughts on me too? And you'd be amazed. You know, I think me too is an amazing thing. I think me too is all made up. I think me too is a bad thing. So, you know, certainly I think there, when a pub, when the public or any individual hears about a high profile sexual assault lawsuit, it's going to be met. Almost 50, 50, I would say, no matter what, you know, you look at sort of, you know, my claims against my clients, claims against Diddy, you know, a lot of backlash. I was at that criminal trial with Sean Combs. I mean, most of the people in there were staunch Combs supporters. No matter what he did, no matter how many times the video were played of him, you know, just really, I don't know how to, you know, beating the, you know, you know, beating whatever out of Cassie in the elevator bank. Like, no matter how many times the public sees that video, Diddy supporters are going to continue to support him. So, you know, there you deal with, I guess like another heightened level of adverse, you know, you know, of adverse opinions when you're dealing with someone who is beloved as a, you know, as a Combs or as a Kanye west or something along those lines.

[David Pakman]

Last thing I want to ask you about. Do you have any opinion as to whether Epstein died by suicide or was murdered by someone who wanted him dead?

[Eric Fudali]

I, I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I don't have any evidence to the contrary that, that Epstein. But I will say this, and I think this is important when I, you know, I think it comes down to, you know, trusting this administration with Epstein. And I think it's important to take a look back at, you know, how much distrust the public should have for this administration when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein. You know, first thing you want to look at, 2008. Obviously, Trump was not in power in 2008, but in 2008, Alex Acosta gave Jeffrey Epstein what has been often described as a sweetheart deal. I've been calling it an absolute travesty of injustice. He basically ignored 60 victims, allegedly. He, even when he made the deal, he told his fellow prosecutors not to inform the victims. That is an extremely shady things. I was a prosecutor beginning of my career for like six months until I found out I had to put like 18 year olds in jail for, for marijuana. And I, and I quit. But even in those six months, I learned that you always, the one thing you do is you tell the victims what the plea deal is. So you Fast forward to 2016, Trump makes Alex Acosta his Secretary of Labor. I actually did the research on this. I think there's only been one other prosecutor in the history of, of the government who's been made a Secretary of Labor. It was Tom Davis under Obama, and he was actually a civil rights prosecutor. So it's worked as a state labor secretary. So it's just such an odd appointment of Alex Acosta, sort of a shamed prosecutor, to become the Secretary of Labor. Then, of course, you move what you just asked me about, you know, 2019, Jeffrey Epstein's put in custody, federal custody. Whether he killed himself or not, something weird happened because he was in federal custody under suicide watch and he killed himself. You know, and again, that is under the Trump administration. It's just such an odd, suspicious, like, what the hell happened there? You move forward to Glenn Maxwell under the, you know, the Biden administration. She's brought to justice the only person in the history of this Epstein scandal who's been tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison. And then what happens? Within months, you know, last first year of Trump in power, he moves her to a minimum security resort. So when you look at sort of this history dating all the way back 2008, how Trump has. Has. Has handled Epstein and the scandal, like, you just, I think, have to be suspicious and can't trust any aspect of what's being told to you or what is going to happen, but you have.

[David Pakman]

No specific theory, so to speak.

[Eric Fudali]

Yeah, that was a very long way of me telling you I don't have a specific theory other than I don't believe anything that comes out of this administration when it comes to Epstein. Epstein continues to get special treatment beyond the grave, which is unlike any criminal I've ever seen in my life. He's still treated better than. Than criminals who are alive.

[David Pakman]

We've been speaking with Eric Fudali, a civil rights attorney who currently represents 11 Epstein survivors. Really appreciate your time.

[Eric Fudali]

Thanks, David. Thanks for having me on. Appreciate.

[David Pakman]

Is easy to forget how many great family photos you have until you put them all in one place and see them. And our sponsor, Aura Frames, makes the digital frame I've been using in my house. And it is one of my favorite gifts to give other people. The Aura frame I gave my dad a few years ago has photos going back so long, he walks by it every day. He loves it. You can preload photos onto the frame before even gifting it, even if Aura ships it directly and you can add a personal message as well. Then you and the recipient can keep adding photos from anywhere using the Aura app. The app is free and unlimited. You can put as many memories as you want on there. Super easy to use. No surprise, the New York Times named Aura the best digital photo frame. Every frame comes in a premium gift box. It feels like a polished, thoughtful gift and you'll get $45 off or as best selling carver mat frames. When you go to aura frames.com and use the code Pacman at checkout, it is Aura's best sale of the year. The link is in the description Epstein Files aside, Donald Trump has just been slammed with some of the worst legal news, I would argue in years. And it didn't come from New York. It didn't come from Georgia, it didn't come from California. It came from the state of Texas. This is a place Trump thought he was safe. It's a place he thought was safe. And it is the state that Republicans really treat like their personal property. And a federal court has blocked Texas's newly drawn congressional map, saying so sorry, it is unconstitutional. It's not a minor adjustment. This blows up the entire Republican plan to carve out five additional seats for themselves ahead of the 2026 midterms. Here is a report from Ms. Now. Do not adjust your television. This is the network formerly known as msnbc.

[News Anchor / Reporter]

MSDNC got some breaking news now out of Texas where a federal court has blocked that state's newly drawn congressional map on the grounds it appears to be unconstitutional. Ms. Now legal affairs reporter Fallon Gallagher joins me now. What else did the court have to say?

[Fallon Gallagher]

Chris? This is a massive blow for the Republicans who wanted to redraw this map map to include those five seats. So basically what this three judge panel has ruled is that that map is now unconstitutional and they must use the 2021 map. They're saying that you used it for 2020, you used it for 2022 midterms. And now there's not enough time to completely redraw a new map calling in a special session. And so you have to use that 2020, 2021 map. The 2025 map is unconstitutional. They say that this is race based based gerrymandering. This will almost certainly be appealed. But right now that is what the district court ruling has said.

[News Anchor / Reporter]

And does it have some breaking news now out of Texas?

[David Pakman]

So there is the news and this is why the story gets so damn funny. While Texas Republicans were trying to just ram, they're ramming through this partizan map and insisting it's legally fine, completely fine, totally constitutional. California and Gavin Newsom did the opposite. California said, let's put it to a vote, let's hold an election. And they did, on whether to redraw its maps. And the people decided, we want to do that. It's clean, it's transparent, it's Democratic. It was done with public oversight. So California's maps have survived, and for now, the Texas maps are flushed 10 to 15 times by a federal judge. Now, I think it's important to mention Gavin Newsom did say, you know, the California map change was conditional on what Texas did, and Texas went ahead and did it. Now, this is not Texas saying, we actually are going back. This is a judge saying, you broke the Constitution, try again. They're going to appeal. So we don't yet know where it's going to land. But there is a question. If this ultimately is struck down, even on appeal, does Gavin Newsom now say, oh, well, since Texas isn't doing it, we're not doing it? I think no, the voters have voted. Texas did do it. The fact that it might later be invalidated is their problem. That's not Gavin Newsom's problem. That's not the problem for the millions of Californians who voted. So the irony of this is just incredible. Now, there's another, I guess, kind of layer that's worth mentioning, which is that Donald Trump has spent years telling his followers, democrats cheat the blue states rig everything. They do things you're not allowed to do. Republicans are the victims. No one's been treated more unfairly than Trump. And now one of the most brazen election rigging schemes of the cycle gets crushed in a red state by a federal court for violating the Constitution. It's not just embarrassing. This really goes to the core of how Republicans have kept power. Even as their vote share shrinks, they don't lose and go, hey, you know what? Maybe our policy platform isn't convincing people. Maybe we should rethink what we run on in order to secure the will of the vote. No, they go, let's just redraw maps. And then California went and did it the right way. So I think that this is the biggest irony of ironies. We're now going to have to wait and see. Does a court take this on appeal? Or what exactly is the deal with that? But I want to hear from you. My view is California must keep these maps no matter what happens. Newsom said, if Texas does it, we will put it to a vote. Texas did it. Californians voted, and they said yes if it's invalidated by a court. Because what Texas did is unconstitutional. They're now going to have to live with that. I believe the California maps should stay. Let me know what you think. Donald Trump has a real problem on his hands and it is coming from a group that I don't think he believed he would ever lose. And that group is farmers and ranchers. And it is not only the liberal farmers or the coastal farmers from California and Massachusetts. Are there farmers in Massachusetts? There are some. We're talking about South Dakota farmers, Trump country, the people who carried Trump to victory like a phoenix rising over the horizon in his first term. And he screwed him then and he's screwing them again and it seems like they might be done with Donald Trump. Here is a South Dakota farmer not mincing words. The tariffs are a disaster. Take a listen.

[South Dakota Farmer 1]

The tariffs have caused a tremendous negative impact. Of course everybody tries to get good yields, but no matter how high the yields are, if you don't have a fair price, you're still not going to make money. There was an article saying from Argentina that they're only shipping high grade beef to the steakhouses. And if you believe that, I've got a bridge in Arizona I want to sell you because that is so fictitious. There's going to be all kinds of beef coming over. They're not going to limit it to the high end cuts. And even if they do, that's going to take away the prices for our farmers and our cattle feeders that supply those high quality priced cuts to the to the steakhouses. It appears to be a Repeat of the 1980s and of the 30s. It start in that scenario where the money is more flowing into the corporate levels and the top echelon of people in our society. And when that happens, the farmers usually take it in the shorts and I'm very concerned, concerned about it. We're going to have record yields and we're going to have less than break even prices for our farmers.

[David Pakman]

This is not primarily a farming show, although maybe that's what it should be. But there is an interesting topic here about the good growing season versus the market and the price. And there have been Republicans who just love to talk about how great a season it's been. The weather has been favorable, the farmers are doing great in terms of yield. This is not a yield issue. This is something Trump has never understood. Agriculture is not plant more and win. It's markets and prices and stability. And when you blow up trade relationships with China to try to look tough, it's the farmers who get hit first and it's the farmers who get hit, really, the worst. Another South Dakota farmer who explains really in good detail why these tariffs and subsequent bailouts. None of it is in the interest of the farmers.

[South Dakota Farmer 2]

Whatever would go onto the land, he first had to make sure that it went onto the tip of his tongue first before he would apply it to his soil and to his land. Because if it killed him, it was going to kill the life in the soil. For Trump, the welfare of the American farmer is not in his best interest. And he's compounded that lately now with the beef issue, wanting to import beef from Argentina, of all places. When we look back to what the slogan was a year ago at this time, America first. Well, obviously it's Argentina first. And why is that? Because they have a dictatorship that's in trouble, and we have a dictator in making Trump that wants to hold onto that country and make it a dictator dictatorship yet. And with that 20 to 40 billion dollars invested by the United States, they're looking at trying to get some type of return on it. We also have a Treasury secretary who has investment interests in that country along with other people.

[David Pakman]

And so he certainly sounds like he's figured it out. Even Trump's base, which is not to say every single farmer and rancher voted for Trump, but they overwhelmingly did. Even Trump's base is now kind of realizing this is a fake, whole America first thing. It was never real. It was never for the workers, it wasn't for the manufacturers, and it was definitely not for the ranchers and the farmers. The people who came first for Trump at the end of the day were always the same ones. It was the donors and the billionaires and the corporations and the dictators that Trump was always trying to impress. And everybody else, they were props. They were background characters. If you had a vote you could give to Trump, he would try to placate you. If you had money you could give to Trump, even if it's not a lot, he would still take it. These South Dakota farmers stuck with Trump mostly for a while, through the tariffs, through the broken markets, certainly through the stuff from the first term and through the bailouts that never fixed anything. And now they're looking at three and a quarter years of the same crap. The collapsing prices, the foreign beef imports, the billionaire cronyism. And some of them, fortunately, are saying, this is enough. But the sign and the signal is if Trump's losing them, he's got to be terrified. Because when the farmers turn on a Republican president in deep red South Dakota, that is not like a realign, a minor realignment that is not a small partizan change. This is a very loud warning to Republicans for 2026. Trump should be terrified now. We have a phenomenal bonus show for you today. I would love it if you signed up@join packman.com every new memberships first payment this month through Thanksgiving will be donated back out. Speaking of food to Feeding America, a great charity that funds food banks across the country, sign up at join pacman.com grab a substack premium subscription at substack.david pakman.com I'll see you on the bonus show.