KASH PATEL'S DISASTROUS HILL TRIP, WITH KATIE PHANG AND Anand Giridharadas

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Jim Acosta Show

Episode: KASH PATEL'S DISASTROUS HILL TRIP, WITH KATIE PHANG AND Anand Giridharadas
Date: September 17, 2025
Host: Jim Acosta
Guests: Katie Phang (independent journalist & legal expert), Anand Giridharadas (author & commentator)
Main Theme:
A deep dive into FBI Director Kash Patel’s controversial handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files during a contentious House Judiciary Committee hearing, broader issues of free speech under Trump, the threat to American democracy, and searching for a path forward in a divided political landscape.

---

Episode Overview

Jim Acosta, joined by Katie Phang and later Anand Giridharadas, breaks down Kash Patel’s “disastrous” Congressional testimony over the Epstein files, the Trump administration’s shifting stance on transparency, and escalating attacks on civil liberties and the media. The discussions also branch into the root causes of political polarization and explore potential avenues for healing and democratic renewal in the United States.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Kash Patel’s Congressional Hearing and the Epstein Files

(00:06 – 11:29)

• Patel’s evasiveness:
  Kash Patel, now FBI Director, appeared before the House Judiciary Committee and dodged basic questions on the Epstein files, despite formerly promising full disclosure.

  • Jim Acosta: "He really shit the bed at these congressional hearings today." (00:48)

• Use of notes and lack of competence:

  • Katie Phang: "Kash Patel is incapable of answering a question unless it's located on a note card that's in front of him." (01:30)
    Patel’s reliance on note cards was mocked, signaling his lack of preparedness and substance.

• Changing narrative:
  Patel shifted blame from current officials to previous administrations while evading questions about his own actions.

• Republican stonewalling:
  The Trump team, once boisterously for Epstein file transparency, reversed course after rumors circulated about Trump’s own mentions in those files.

  • Acosta: “They were the ones...all about releasing the Epstein files. And then as soon as Elon Musk said that Trump's in the Epstein files, they've acted like it's a hot potato.” (02:27)

• Legal transparency and blame-shifting:
  Phang called out Patel for refusing yes/no answers and for blaming prior DOJ officials, particularly Alex Acosta (no relation to Jim), who gave Epstein his key plea deal in the 2000s.

• Memorable Exchange:
  Acosta and Phang highlight Patel’s past bravado on Epstein, shown up by Rep. Raskin’s use of video clips where Patel had called for names to be released and the “big boy pants” challenge. In the hearing, Patel could only offer weak deflections.

  • Raskin clip/Patel quote:
    "Put on your big boy pants and let us know who the pedophiles are." (05:44, clip relayed by C/D)

---

2. Congressional Inaction and Political Grandstanding

(11:29 – 16:56)

• Hearing dysfunction:
  Congressional hearings accomplish little when partisanship reigns. Patel dodged pointed questions from Democrats, such as Rep. Jasmine Crockett, with Rep. Jim Jordan swooping in to shield him.
  • Phang: “When you get Jim Jordan as the chair, you're never going to get a straight answer from somebody like Kash Patel.” (08:59)
• DOJ, leaks, and limited action:
  The only documented mention of Trump in the Epstein files is the “birthday book,” yet rumors abound of other appearances.
  • Acosta: “The only instance that we know of Donald Trump being in the Epstein files is this birthday book...there are other instances that we just don’t know about.” (11:29)
• Media, weaponization, and free speech threats:
  Phang and Acosta warn of coordinated right-wing campaigns against journalists and dissent, with Trump and surrogates escalating rhetoric about targeting the media.
  • Phang: "I'm offended to the core about this idea that J.D. Vance, Stephen Miller, Trump and others are now claiming that they're going to go after the media." (14:56)

---

3. Systemic Distrust and the "Crisis of Respect"

Anand Giridharadas joins (21:29 – 39:39)

• Despair and hope:
  Giridharadas reflects on profound American anxiety and polarization but shares Ro Khanna’s concept of a potential “grand truce” based on mutual respect between traditional America and emergent, diverse America.

  • Anand: "I think people are losing the ability to imagine that there could be something on the other side of this mess." (22:36)

• Root causes of division:
  Economic decay, cultural loss, and the feeling of being “cosmically uncared for” drive alienation across the spectrum—not just "white grievance."

  • Anand: "Life is grueling...in other places, these things are guaranteed—here, they aren't." (32:00)
  • Anand: “The sense of being cosmically uncared for is the great common culture in this country today.” (33:10)

• Policy and cultural approaches:
  Giridharadas calls for Democrats/progressives to combine bold, simple economic policies (like Medicare for All, child care, affordable housing) with cultural outreach that acknowledges and respects those feeling left behind.

  • Anand: “Offer real ambitious, fearless, unapologetic economic policy that is sweeping and bold and not like little tax credits that people don't understand.” (36:39)

• Notable policy example:
  The inefficacy of complicated policies (e.g., Harris's "medical debt not counted in your credit score" vs. universal healthcare) illustrates the need for straightforward solutions.

  • Anand: “…all these other people online were like, or we could just not have medical debt.” (40:44)

---

4. America's Lost Faith in Democracy—and the Path Forward

(35:31 – 44:53)

• Erosion of trust:
  Both left and right see "the system" as indifferent; even those who deeply believe in democracy feel like they're "selling religion."
  • Anand: "In my faith in democracy...I'm like, selling some religion that most people just are not that interested in buying anymore." (35:31)
• What Rebuilds Hope:
  Direct, universal benefits (like national healthcare) tangibly show that citizens are cared for.
  • Anand’s UK NHS story (43:23): "If you happen to be on this soil, you are cared for."
  • Acosta: “I think people in this country are ready for that, honestly.” (44:12)
• Countering fascism:
  The episode closes with a call to confront authoritarian trends not just by resisting, but by lifting people up—“ending fascism by saving lives.”

---

5. The Epstein Files as a Microcosm of Accountability

(45:07 – End)

• Symbol of secrecy and lost trust:
  Acosta circles back: the White House’s refusal to release the Epstein files encapsulates the broader transparency and trust crisis.
• Public action and international comparison:
  Acosta lauds British activists for projecting images of Trump and Epstein on Windsor Castle, advocating for American citizens to take similarly bold action.
  • Acosta: “We should be projecting the, the goddamn Epstein files and Donald Trump and Epstein on buildings in Washington D.C.” (45:36)
• Call to action:
  Acosta concludes that withholding the Epstein files is a fundamental betrayal of public right-to-know—“Why in God's name do we still not have the Epstein files released?” (45:40)

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• "He really shit the bed at these congressional hearings today."
  —Jim Acosta (00:48)

• "Kash Patel is incapable of answering a question unless it's located on a note card that's in front of him."
  —Katie Phang (01:30)

• "Put on your big boy pants and let us know who the pedophiles are."
  —Cash Patel, quoted by Jamie Raskin (05:44)

• "When you get Jim Jordan as the chair, you're never going to get a straight answer from somebody like Kash Patel."
  —Katie Phang (08:59)

• "The sense of being cosmically uncared for is the great common culture in this country today."
  —Anand Giridharadas (33:10)

• "I don't think we end fascism by killing anyone. I think we end fascism by saving lives..."
  —Anand Giridharadas (44:33)

• "Why in God's name do we still not have the Epstein files released? Why in God's name are these survivors and victims still wondering what the hell is going on?"
  —Jim Acosta (45:40)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:06 – 09:47: Discussion of Kash Patel’s hearing and evasion over Epstein files
• 09:47 – 14:56: Congressional dysfunction, lack of transparency, media attacks
• 16:12 – 18:49: Threats to civil liberties, hope in lower courts, resisting authoritarian chill
• 21:29 – 26:59: Anand Giridharadas joins; exploring America’s crisis of respect and truce proposal
• 31:35 – 39:39: Addressing "white grievance," economic realities, need for bold policy
• 40:44 – 43:23: Simplicity in policy; importance of national health care
• 45:07 – End: Acosta’s closing thoughts; need for public accountability and action

---

Tone & Style

• Direct, at times profane, never mincing words (“shit the bed,” “bonehead”).
• Mix of humor, righteous indignation, and glimpses of hope.
• Conversational yet analytically sharp—especially with Giridharadas’s sociopolitical dissections.
• Emphasizes both legal expertise (Phang) and a philosophical, sociological lens (Giridharadas).

---

Conclusion

This episode delivers an incisive critique of current political leadership, focusing on the failure to deliver transparency with the Epstein files as emblematic of deeper institutional and societal malaise. Through legal analysis and broader cultural reflection, Acosta, Phang, and Giridharadas tie together the urgent need for accountability, empathetic policy, and the rekindling of collective purpose to confront American democracy’s current crossroads.

Transcript

[A]

All right, welcome to the Jim Acosta Show. And it's another day that ends in Y and Donald Trump's assault on American democracy. He's coming after your free speech, too. But his aides are also busy hiding the Epstein files from the public. FBI Director Cash Patel, who once vowed to release the Epstein files, was dodging questions on the subject at another disastrous hearing up on Capitol Hill, this time before the House Judiciary Committee. Let's discuss with my friend, independent journalist, legal expert Katie Fang, who's on substack YouTube. She's here, she's there, she's everywhere. Katie, how are you?

[B]

I'm good. I'm in la. That is theoretically still occupied by the National Guard, which is a whole other conversation that we can always have. But that's where I am today.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, I'm kind of occupied by Cash Patel's nonsense. I mean, I think there's only one way to put it. He really shit the bed at these congressional hearings today. He was testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, and at one point, he conceded to Congressman Eric Swalwell that he has not reviewed all of the documents in the Epstein files. He said at one point, I've not reviewed the entirety of the files. I'm just curious, Katie, just watching all of this. I mean, there were lots of fireworks. What did you pick up on and what do you make of the way Cash Patel has gone from we're releasing the Epstein files to what Epstein files? Documents. I know nothing about documents.

[B]

Well, I don't know if you noticed, but Kash Patel is incapable of answering a question unless it's located on a note card that's in front of him. I wasn't quite sure if he was playing some updated version of mahjong today because he had all. All of these note cards in front of him, and anytime he was asked a question, he was almost like, wait a second, scramble to go find the note card to be able to answer the question. But here's the reality. He is truly the Trump administration DEI hire, is he not? The guy is not competent to be able to do his job. And now the party line that's coming out of this FBI and the Trump administration, and you heard it from the other Republicans today, is, but why didn't the earlier administrations ask for things regarding the Epstein files? And that's not really the issue. The issue is he's currently the FBI director and he needs to give this information over. And it's funny because he keeps on doing this dance about whether or not it's Trump that's gatekeeping this information or not. And he just makes himself look even worse when he's obviously failing the transparency test.

[A]

Yeah, I don't know why he's pointing the finger at previous administrations. I mean, this whole party got started, as we know, over the summer when, or maybe it was right before the summer started, when Elon Musk said that Donald Trump was in the Epstein files. And so there was a whole hue and cry over that. And then the DOJ put out that ridiculous memo saying, nothing to see here. There's nothing. There's just nothing in the Epstein files. There's nothing about Donald Trump. Please move on. Please disperse. That's why we're having this conversation, because they obviously, they were the ones who were all about releasing the Epstein files. And then as soon as Elon Musk said that Trump's in the Epstein files, they've acted like it's a hot potato. And, I mean, I just, I find it to be totally insane. And I, you know, there's a part of me that wonders. There's just got to be something in there that is totally devastating and embarrassing for Trump.

[B]

Why not. Why not just answer the question that's posed to you with a yes or no answer? Right? You and I have asked people questions all the time, right, Jim? Just answer the question yes or no, and you're always going to be given the chance to be able to explain your answer. I mean, that's a, that's a legal tenet that we ascribe to as trial lawyers as well. So here's the thing. You either have had conversations with Donald Trump about the Epstein files or you have it. None of that is privileged. None of that is supposed to be reign confidential. And then in addition to that, you've obviously had conversations with the Attorney General, Pam Bondi. Why not also share that information with the American people? But the more cloak and dagger you are about it, the more you're going to pique people's interest. And that's the stupidity behind this. You either put it all out there and let people use their critical thinking skills, what's left of them, to make a decision as to what they think is the culpability here or not. But now he's also blaming, and I think appropriately so. But this guy doesn't take all the blame, Jim. The former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Alex Acosta. No relation to you.

[A]

No relation.

[B]

Costa, I have always been saying, needs to answer questions. We know that his deposition is supposed to be coming up two days from now, I think on the 19th of September. But he should be answering questions because he's the one who authorized that sweetheart deal that Epstein got down in Florida in the mid-2000s.

[A]

Yeah, and I mean, there was this other contentious exchange with Congressman Jamie Raskin. Raskin played video of Cash Patel before the f. Before he became FBI Director. And at the time, he was calling on the head of the bureau to put. He said, put your big boy pants on and let us know who the pedophiles are. And at this point, Cash Patel came totally unglued. Let's watch this and we'll talk about on the other side.

[C]

Before you joined the FBI, you railed against it for covering up Jeffrey Epstein's human trafficking ring. Let me refresh your memory with this clip.

[D]

It has Epstein's list.

[A]

They're sitting on it. That doesn't seem like something you should do. You're protecting the world's foremost predator. That seems like an evil thing to do, regardless of who may be embarrassed in the release of that list. Why is the FBI protecting the greatest pederast, the largest scale pederast in human history?

[D]

Simple. Because of who's on that list.

[C]

So you finished that December 2023 interview with a challenge to the FBI and harsh words for Republicans in Congress for not getting the Epstein files out to the public. You can see this clip, boy pants.

[D]

And let us know who the pedophiles are.

[C]

Put on your big boy pants and let us know who the pedophiles are. You said, you emphasized that the President and FBI Director each had complete authority to release Epstein's client list. You said Epstein's black book is under the, quote, direct control of the Director of the FBI. Look at this clip.

[D]

And this is way off the topic, but who has Jeffrey Epstein's black book? Black book, FBI. But who that is. I mean, there's. That's under direct control of the Director of the FBI.

[C]

All right, so you were sworn in as director more than 200 days ago. Now the black book is under your direct control. So why haven't you released the names of Epstein's co conspirators in. In the rape and sex trafficking of young women and girls.

[D]

The Rolodex, which is what everybody colloquially refers to as the black book, has been released.

[C]

Oh, no, you're talking about what the journalist got five years ago. No, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about what you were talking about there. The black book under the direct control of FBI Director.

[D]

We have released more material than anyone else before the Biden administration. Obama administration had the exact opportunities to release this material. They never did. And if you are selling the men and women of the FBI. Hang on, you said we're not going after child predators. 1500 child predators arrested this year, 35% income, 4700 child my time.

[A]

If you could instruct. Yeah, I mean, it just goes on and on like this. And it's stunning, Katie, to see the way they were just very cavalier about this. Oh, just release the files. Put your big boy pants on and, and all of this stuff. And I, you know, I guess you could say, well, they were just talking out of their ass. And maybe Cash Patel should say, listen, I was talking out of my ass. What else can I say?

[B]

But you're never going to get accountability for them on that, Jim.

[A]

But I will say, judges have said, yeah, go ahead. No, I was going to say, judges have said, you guys can release the files so he can do it. They could do it.

[B]

Judges have gone a step further. They've said, the files are. The judges have called out this administration for the head fake of trying to get the unsealing of those grand jury records. Right. And the judges have said, well, what you guys have, as in the federal government is way better and way more expansive and way more detailed than anything that I could ever provide from the grand jury records. But here's the thing. You know what we haven't heard a clip for today? Donald Trump himself on the campaign trail, pledging to all Americans that he would be turning over the Zepstein files and achieving American transparency once he got elected into the Oval Office again. He's the one who got this ball started. He's the one who actually is the total genesis of this. And so now you have this blame that they're trying to lay at the foot of the, of the prior administrations. Look, I think that this should have been dealt with decades ago. But why is, why is anybody being punished for seeking answers right now? And the thing is, what drives me nuts just generally about these congressional hearings, if I can bitch for a second, please. You get Jim Jordan, for example, who, by the way, when Jasmine Crockett was grilled, was just, just killing Cash Patel. His credibility, his competence. Kash Patel elected not to answer when Jasmine Crockett was done, but who came up to his defense? Jim Jordan. So when you get Jim Jordan as the chair, you're never going to get a straight answer from somebody like Kash Patel.

[A]

No, that's true. And I mean, the thing that blows My mind in all of this is, you know, if it were not for the current controversy that we're in the middle of right now as it relates to Donald Trump and the Epstein files, we wouldn't know about the Epstein birthday book. So when Kash Patel is saying stuff like why didn't they release it during the Biden administration or the Obama administration, he skips over the Trump administration that was in between the Obama Biden administration. But that's not really the point here. The point is we found out about the Epstein birthday book because of the pressure being brought to bear by both Democrats and Republicans on the Department of Justice. And the House Oversight Committee, which is led by a Republican, helped obtain that information. I mean, led by Cash Patel, Robert Garcia and others. I mean it's, it's wild.

[B]

Well, I was going to say though, it took Summer Lee and Robert Garcia Summerly dup duping that House Oversight Committee by way of an exceptional motion move, talking about trafficking. Right. So she was able to secure that subpoena. But what haven't we seen, Jim? We haven't seen any new information. We've seen drip, drip, drip from the DOJ and now even the Epstein in a state giving tranches of information, but nothing that's hugely overwhelming. Look, there was a really good line of questioning to two I think that continue to be sought by the Democrats today. One is follow the money. You have all of these suspicious activity reports that were done by four major banks. Jamie Raskin on the floor announced orally that he wanted to file a motion to subpoena those four banks about those suspicious activity reports. And he called out Congress, he said, look, we can get Hunter Biden shit, but, but why can't we get this stuff concerning Jeffrey Epstein, pedophile of the century. And then the other one was the representative from Pennsylvania, she also called about the following. The money, why are we not following? All of this money that's been paid, that's the way that you fund a trafficking ring is paying people to either shut up, stay silent or to facilitate what's happening. And so I'm glad to see that. And then we had somebody like Congresswoman Sidney Kam Lagerdove who very artfully said and reminded the FBI director Kash Patel that that domestic terrorism really should be something that they should be focusing on and not in a one sided way. And this dumbass didn't know who Dylann Roof is.

[A]

I saw that. Wow.

[B]

Because he was scrambling to find his. Let me find my note card. So. And then like the people behind them you could see them when they're note cards, like, you know, freaking out, trying to, like, help him out. It's just disgusting that he doesn't even know about Dylann Roof. Why? Because, as Jasmine Crockett, like, notably said, they're only caring about stuff that happens to white people at this point. Point.

[A]

Well, and the other thing, too, is that Cash Patel is not a serious law enforcement person. He is a boob. He should not be in the position of FBI director. He has no business being in that position in the first place and not knowing who Dylann Roof is. I mean, that, that's pretty impeachable as it, as it is right there. But the other, the other questions that are out there, and I think Zoe Loughgren was asking this at one point during the hearing. How many times does Donald Trump appear in the Epstein files? I think Eric Swalwell was also asking these questions. The only instance that we know of Donald Trump being in the Epstein files is this birthday book. I think there isn't much more than that that we know about at this point. And if the Department of Justice briefed Trump back in May, saying you appear multiple times in the Epstein files, that's what was reported in terms of what was briefed in by Pam Bondi and Cash Patel, then, then there are other instances that we just don't know about. And I don't understand if it's shocking to me that they expect the public to just keep on going whistling zippity doo dah without knowing what are the other instances that Donald Trump appears in the Epstein files. It's, it's nuts.

[B]

So what? Patel did not deny. And of course, this is the important things, the things that he refuses because, listen, he knows that he's going to be, he's on, he's going to have to tell the truth. Right. This is Congress. Right. He did not deny that FBI agents were brought in to scour those files and flag mentions of Donald Trump and other conservatives, by the way, not just Donald Trump. So we know. And then we also know. And again, here's the caveat. I understand it's Project Veritas, which we know has some credibility question marks. Right. But what about that senior official at the DOJ who said on his date secretly recorded that they were intentionally going to strip the Epstein files of any mention of any Democrat, excuse me, conservatives or Republicans, and that they were going to make sure, quote, any liberals or Democrats were going to remain. Why is there no congressional investigation into that? These are things that we need to have answers for. And look, Cash Patel, if you are just an American, I don't care what your party affiliation is, you're an American. You should be worried that that guy is running the FBI. It is the most powerful law enforcement agency, second only to the Department of Justice in the world. And the way that he's running this department, they make it sound like there's pogroms that are going on where there was persecution for Catholics and that parents weren't allowed to sit there and do things for their kids. I mean, they have gone so far afield from what the mission statement is for the FBI. And the Republicans are just sitting there shoveling shit and hoping that nobody realizes that it stinks.

[A]

Well, and he was being grilled on political retribution inside the FBI. Apparently, when he testified during his confirmation hearings, he said that there would not be political retribution at the FBI. And it's been reported time and again that there are FBI agents coming out of the woodwork saying, we got forced out of the bureau because of the political retribution. And so, I mean, you know, he's. He's just lied his way through this entire tenure as FBI director. And it was funny the other. I don't know if you saw this, Katie, the other day, before Trump left for Europe, before, I think it was before he threatened Jonathan Carl for hate speech.

[B]

Oh, I know.

[A]

He, he indicated. He was asked, well, what do you think about Cash Patel? And he says, well, Pam Bonney is doing a great job. And then he said, well, Cash Patel, you know, they did find the. The shooter of Charlie Kirk within a couple of days. The guy turned himself in.

[B]

I mean, his parents turned him in. Right.

[A]

It does not sound good for Cash Patel.

[B]

No. And listen, Jim, you know, all kidding aside, right, you know what it's like to deal with Donald Trump, his ire, and his targeting of the media. I'm offended to the core about this idea that J.D. vance, Stephen Miller, Trump and others are now claiming that they're going to go after the media. Right. Not like that's anything new, but it's interesting because they want to say that it's so politically divisive and violent for, quote, liberals, leftists and Democrats to say that these people are enemies of the state or that they're enemies. But you know what? That's what Donald Trump has always said about the media. He has always called the media the enemies of the state, and he's told people to go after the media. And him going after Jonathan Karl, who was just asking a question, just goes to show that he's not Suited for office either. Trump has never been suited for office. But unfortunately, when you weaponize federal agencies the way that he has, it obviously gives people cause for pause. And it has a legitimate chilling effect.

[A]

No, it absolutely does. And I'm going to talk about this with our friend Anand in just a little bit. And, you know, they're talking about, you know, going after people where they work, you know, turning people into their employers and saying this person was engaging in hate speech and members of the military are being looked at.

[B]

I mean, you have that great substack piece, though, where you quoted Charlie Kirk from last year.

[A]

Exactly.

[B]

That was a great. That was a great quote, Jim, because that came from Charlie Kirk himself.

[A]

He said it himself last year. You know, there. Legally, there is no such thing as hate speech in the United States. And I don't agree with Charlie Kirk on just about anything. But he has a point. He had a point when he put out that tweet, you can't. And the Wall Street Journal was going after Pam Bondi today, saying what? What world are we living in where the Attorney General, we're talking Cash Patel not being up to snuff? What kind of world do we live in where Pam. Bonnie doesn't understand what the First Amendment does in terms of protecting people in this country. It's bananas, but it's a lot of.

[D]

It's.

[A]

It's so performative. You know, they go on Fox and they. They talk a big game and they say all kinds of crazy shit, but it can have real life consequences.

[B]

Well, look, we have people that are getting terminated from their jobs. We have people that are, you know, that are being persecuted, frankly, for expressing their opinions about what happened last week. But then again, you get people like Glenn Beck who says that Charlie Kirk was a civil rights activist on par with Martin Luther King. In my mind, that type of speech should be suppressed because that's a blatant lie. But you know what? The First Amendment allows Glenn Beck to lie down and spit up in the air and say dumb shit. I support Glenn Beck's ability to be able to do that because that's what the Constitution says. But it doesn't mean that I have to agree with it. And it also doesn't mean that I cannot say that I disagree with Glenn Beck in his reveration and his martyring of Charlie Kirk. I don't agree with it. But you know what? There's a reason why you and I in independent media is the way to go, because you and I both know that it makes mainstream media and legacy media right now, there is a massive chilling effect when it comes to things that have to do with political expression and any type of political, you know, strong language, I guess, is what you call it.

[A]

Yeah. No, Glenn Beck has every right to be a bonehead, and he exercises that right on a daily basis. I mean, it's absolutely true. But here's my question, Katie. Do the courts, you know, I've heard things going back and forth between folks. I talked to Joyce Vance recently, and she has confidence that the courts are going to be there to protect us and so on. I don't believe in the Supreme Court. I think that they've gone MAGA and, you know, God forbid that becomes a 7:2 MAGA Supreme Court instead of 6 to 3. But some of the lower courts have protected civil liberties and some of the lower courts have reined in Trump and some of his strongman autocratic tendencies and actions. Your thoughts?

[B]

So I will always defer to Joyce Vance. Not only my closest friends, but she's probably one of the smartest voices out there. Joyce and I actually have competition sometimes when it comes to optimism, though, in that I kind of come in and I think I'm coming in a little bit more of a naysayer than she is. I will say this, though. I spoke to Cecilia Wong yesterday, the national legal director for the aclu. She said something that was incredibly reassuring, Jim. She says they had already started preparing for a possible Trump 2.0 all the way in early 2024. So there were things that they were already, from a litigation standpoint, anticipating could possibly happen. But here's the thing. People that are honest, including me, will say the level of destruction that's happened in the sheer speed and efficiency by which it has happened, I don't really think people anticipated it to be that successful. Right. I don't think people expected this type of shock and awe campaign. We knew it was going to be bad, but we maybe thought it was going to be in more measured amounts. But what I want to say, Jim, is this. Never underestimate the strength of an American. Never underestimate our strength. We have been built for adversity. We have, many of us, especially those of us even you and me, right. Coming from places of privilege, we've still had to face our own measure of adversity. And we know how to outsmart them. There's more of us than there are of them. And I think you're going to see on October 18th on no King State 2.0, Jim, I think you're going to see A huge, even bigger amount of Americans take it to the streets and saying, get the fuck. Walk out of my city. Get out of my way. This is not my democracy. And I think you're going to see that happen.

[A]

The letters gtfo. I. I do agree with you. We're going to see a lot of that here in the days to come. No, no, no. I drop F bombs all the time on this show. It's. It's part of what we do here. It. We'll do it live. Katie, always great to see you. Thanks so much. Really. I, I know you were saying you're in a hotel room. That means. Must mean you're doing something fun. So I don't want to hold you up, but thanks for doing it.

[B]

I'm here for work. It's going to be great. I will do a plug. I am emceeing for Capitol in Maine, an incredible independent investigative journalism outfit out here in California, focusing on social justice and inequality and climate, which I think are obviously too woke these days for the Republicans, but I'm doing something with them tomorrow, so I'm very proud to be a part of it. So.

[A]

Yeah, good for you, Katie. Excellent work as always, and I'm glad somebody's talking climate. It is. We got to talk about this at some other point. It is the thing that is on my mind all the time that we don't talk about. And I feel like it's going to bite us in the end and us, you know, to go back to that word. But, Katie, great to see you. Best of luck. Safe travels.

[B]

Good to be with you. Bye. Tell Ananda, say hi. Thanks.

[A]

I will, I will. Let's tell him right now. Anand is here. Anand geared at us. And there he is. Say hi to Katie before she goes.

[B]

See you guys later. Anand, it's good to see you.

[A]

Very nice to see you, Anand. Katie was sounding very optimistic there, very hopeful there. It kind of goes against what I was reading from you earlier today where, you know, you don't sound too optimistic and you're talking about perhaps we were entering a new era of kind of a new McCarthyism in this country. And I'm just wondering what your thoughts are. Because, I mean, yes, we can talk about Cash Patel, there's no question about it, but I'm very concerned about, you know, this, this crusade that Pam Bondi and J.D. vance and Donald Trump were all talking about going after a hate speech. Your thoughts?

[D]

Well, actually, the piece you just put up, actually, it was not about the McCarthyism thing. We can talk about that. Also, but that the piece you just put up, America after the Fire, is actually a profoundly optimistic.

[A]

Oh, good, good, good, good. That's right. You talked to Rona as well.

[D]

I did. And. And I'll just share a little bit of it because it was, you know, look, it's been a very, very dark few days, week, month, half year. And the people I talk to, I'm sure it's the same with you. There's just so little hope. And people. I think people are losing the ability to imagine that there could be something on the other side of this mess. Yes, right. Forget about how do you get there. Forget. It's like, I think people are losing the sense that there's literally any life on the other side of this abyss. And yesterday I had this conversation with Congressman Rokana represents Silicon Valley as, you know, and as someone who's a very committed progressive on one level, but is also someone who's really interested in reaching out across divides, talking to different people. He just did a big Epstein thing with. With Marjorie Taylor Greene. Yeah, we had a big interview and. And I ended up writing today about one part of what he said that really kind of. It just stayed with me like, all evening, all night last night into into today, and I wrote about it. And it basically was this idea of what could be on the other side of that mountain in this moment where we can't see anything, what could, if we were able to somehow get through this fire, because it's fire, what would it look like? And what he said, based on time he has spent, out with constituents, out with people in MAGA world, out with progressives, he sort of proposed this kind of grand truce for American life that could stave off the kind of civil war trajectory that we sometimes talk about these days. And at the heart of the truce is this. Again, this is all oversimplified, but. But helpful. He said, you know, if you look at maga, America, particularly dominated by an older, whiter, more Christian section of the country, but not exclusively, as we know, there is a crisis of respect and of esteem. Right. Arlie Russell Hochschild's written two books about this that are very powerful strangers in their own Land. And the other one is Stolen Pride, but essentially a crisis that is partly economic decay, which is real. Right. Which has happened to everybody. But, like, this economy has gotten hard. Parents, the worst feeling in the world as a parent is not being confident that you can be able to leave your kid, even as comfortable a life as you have, let alone better. And then he also talks about some of that sense of loss is not economic. It is more in the territory of culture. It's more like, this used to be my country only and now I have to share it. I think most people listening to this would be a lot less sympathetic to that second one doesn't matter. It's still a real feeling that millions and millions of people have and if it's not tended to, it's a problem. So he says, look, how can we have the new emerging America, immigrant derived families like him be able to build what they want to build, but show respect for the legacy they're coming into? Right. Say thank you for, for as he says, building that, being in those steel mills, for being in those coal mines, for fighting these world wars. And now we want to join this inheritance and add to it. And that's the other half, half of the truce that, that, that folks who have, whose families have been here a lot longer need to accept that, that, you know, change is the reality of culture, that, that you do not lose what you have by, by sharing it. And so he talked about this idea of how do we actually come to a deeper understanding across these divides of the losses, the sense of loss that people feel. How can, how can people like me maybe have more of an understanding and empathy for why a 70 year old white guy in Arizona feels like a stranger in his own land? And how can that guy maybe have a little more empathy for how terrifying it is for a lot of people to have ice roaming around and masked agents sweeping people off the streets? Anyway, we can go into it more depth, but I thought it was a, it was the first time in a while that I'd felt a vision of what it could look like to be passed and beyond and transcend this moment.

[A]

Yeah, no, I agree with you. And I mean, it is nice to hear somebody articulate a way out of this and how there might be some light at the end of the tunnel. My concern is, is that you have places like Fox, you have people like Pam Bondi and Cash Patel, you have people like Donald Trump. I don't know how we avoid the elephant in the room in that you have bad faith people who are willing to do bad faith things. And you know, Ro Khanna, you know, he, I, I spoke to him about all of his work on the Epstein case and it's extraordinary that he's been working with somebody like Thomas Massie and he expressed a lot of respect for Thomas Massie and how he's an MIT guy who, you know, keeps a running tab of the national debt, I think it's some sort of like pin that he has that changes. The national debt keeps going higher and higher and higher. And he seems to really care about this stuff. I just don't. My question is, is how do we get out of this mess where we're just at each other's throats all the time? And this takes us into the conversation about Charlie Kirk, what's happened since then? You have Pam, Bonnie saying we're going to go after hate speech. As Wall Street Journal today said, that's not legal, it's not constitutional. You can't do that.

[D]

I, here's how I, here's how I look at it.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

I think we often focus on these malevolent actors, bad faith actors at the top. And they, they, if that's what you focus on, they're abundant right now. What makes those actors possible or not possible at any given time is the concentric circles of support around them. Right. Are there for those 10 people? Are there a hundred people are willing to be their staffers? Are there a thousand people willing to, you know, help them in some way, call them colleagues and friends? Are there 10 million people willing to not revolt when they're nominated for something? Are there 100 million people willing to vote for a president who puts people like that in power? And I'm always focused on those, the outer rings of those concentric circles. And when I look at whether it's something extreme like these assassinations, including of Charlie Perk, or just, you know, the more garden variety, why do we have so many, you know, low grade people in these roles, dishonest people? I think you have to look at the actual sickness in our body politic, which is most people in this country today. And the statistics bear this out. But my reporting over the last many years, this is the number one takeaway. Most people in this country have lost faith that the system even intends to help people like them. People on the right feel that. People on the left feel it. They feel it for different flavors and reasons. There's different issues that make them go to that place on the left. It's much more about inequality and big money controlling everything and people not getting a fair shot on the right. It's about not being protected on the border, whatever it is, you may agree or disagree with the issues. The consensus at some level is that all the conventional seventh grade civic stuff that you and I were told to do, if we don't like the conditions, most people believe that stuff doesn't really work. And a lot of the time they are right. If they've lived through 2008, if they've lived through Katrina, if they've lived through the, you know, forever wars that were longer than World War II where we couldn't even beat ragtag armies, like, yeah, they've lived in a time in which it feels true that the people in power do not care about you and do not have an ability to solve your problems. Once that is out there.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

Anything and everything is possible.

[A]

Can I ask something that might be slightly controversial? Maybe it's not controversial, but, and I'm going to try to put it as eloquently as I can, you know, I'm a blue collar kid. I'm only capable of so much. But I wonder if we're just so wrapped up in white what, what people who have white grievance care about. I mean, we have a country right now with an unemployment rate around 4%. They're, they're lowering. The Fed just announced, they're lowering interest rates today. Manufacturing has been coming back, inflation has been coming down. I agree with you that the post 2008 period in this country from an economic standpoint left a lot of people hanging, there's no question about it. But then Obama becomes president, gets health care passed. You know, tens of millions of people get health care as a result of that. But you have Donald Trump coming to the scene and he just pushes people's buttons.

[D]

That's.

[A]

That plays in the politics of hate.

[D]

I do.

[A]

You know what I mean?

[D]

I don't know. I don't, I don't think Donald Trump has that much creative force. Okay, yes. Unemployment, maybe 4%. You and I are living a great.

[A]

You think he exploited the conditions that were there?

[D]

Absolutely. This country, economically, people may have jobs, right?

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

But can they afford the house? And what percentage of their income does the house cost? All these numbers, life, even if you are doing fine, life is grueling for, unnecessarily grueling for too many people in this country. And that is true. And, but this is not a white grievance thing. This is like an American grievance thing. Right. Life just isn't like miserable for most people. In a lot of countries that have the kind of money we do, it is really, really hard because all these things that are guaranteed in other places, like you will have a stable retirement, not guaranteed here. You'll be able to send your kids to college. Not guaranteed here. You'll be able to deal with a health care bill not guaranteed here. Right. So thing after thing after thing that people do not have to think about in prosperous countries.

[A]

And that's because the deck is stacked against them. That's because, yes, rich and powerful people and it's the lion's share of the wealth that this country has.

[D]

This is, I, I really think this is beyond left and right. This drives it. Because it's not just like, I don't like inequality, therefore I vote for Donald Trump, which obviously doesn't make any sense.

[A]

No, it is a.

[D]

It is a. What I'm suggesting is when the deck is so stacked for so long and people start to intuit that problems they have will never be solved by anybody they see on tv, then everything just starts to corrode. Your faith in the protocols of democracy erode. When Barack Obama saying, don't boo, vote, it starts to sound like an old man chanting a mantra that has nothing to do with your life. If I walk down the street in Brooklyn, New York, as progressive, if you ask most people in Brooklyn, New York, do you think American electoral democracy, what are your 10 biggest problems over the last 10 years? How has American democracy done for you on those 10 issues? Has it showed concern for you? Right. I wrote the other day in a different piece, that the sense of being cosmically uncared for is the great common culture in this country today. And when that becomes the common culture, the sense of, you know, I guess I'm going to take matters into my own hands at the most extreme, but also just, I'm going to cheer people who at least do something right, this kind of macabre cheering that we see with violence now, again, the concentric circles outside that enable the one person to do the thing, all the passive support, the cheering. I think we have to attend to this notion that most people feel cosmically uncared for, cosmically unheard, and make sure we are proving them wrong. Proving to them that democracy can indeed solve their problems better than any other system, better than taking matters into your own hands right now. People are not wrong to feel that distrust. They may be wrong. They are wrong to resort to extra democratic means, but they are not wrong to. To have lost confidence in the system that you and I grew up covering, that we learned about in school, that we think is important. I sometimes feel in my faith in democracy, which I have a lot of faith in, that I'm like, selling some kind of religion that most people just are not that interested in buying anymore.

[A]

No, I hear you. And I kind of wonder, when Joe Biden was running for president, he said he wanted to restore the soul of American democracy that he was talking about. The soul. And people, I think, got fairly swept up in that message. I think people liked that message back in 2020, and I think people rightly identified Donald Trump as being a threat to that. And I think it's part of the reason why he got thrown out of office, in addition to his complete mismanagement of COVID But I wonder if a candidate could come along with that kind of a message now and really gain any traction. I sort of look at what Mamdani is doing in New York. I look at what James Talarico is doing in Texas. He's also talking about this. Flipping tables because of inequality and so on. I do think there's some resonance there. I just don't know. I don't know how you penetrate the. The MAGA bubble. I mean, you've got. And I know you're like, well, let's just not pay attention to the bottom feeders. And so when you got Brian Kill me on Fox saying, let's inject homeless people with, you know, lethal injection.

[D]

No, I think you got to be very focused on it. But I think at the end of the day, you have to woo.

[A]

More.

[D]

People to reject that stuff than to be attracted to it.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

And the way you do that, I think, is actually quite straightforward. I think if Democrats are thinking about, you know, how do you outwit this quite powerful, this quite powerful movement? I think there's an economic component of it which is offer real ambitious, fearless, unapologetic economic policy that is sweeping and bold and not like little tax credits that people don't understand. No, I Party stuff that is like, you need a PhD. You need a. You need the government to offer free PhDs just so you can understand the other policies that it's proposing. Right. Get rid of that stuff. You know, this and a lot of this stuff, whether or not you like Bernie, like a lot of that stuff, or Mamdani's free bus is just like simple elegance, right? Elegance, sweeping. Bernie was winning a lot of MAGA people right back in. In 2016.

[A]

He was. That's exactly right. He might have won if he. If he had been the one running.

[D]

And then the second thing is more what I was talking about with Roe, which is kind of cultural outreach. Right. And I think if you look at someone like Pete Buttigieg, you see more of that with him, which is saying, we see you and hear you and respect you. We think you've been duped by a con man who's not going to help you, but we do not disrespect you. And I think right now, progressives are often caught, or the left, broadly, between a kind of Bernie, let's say, Mamdani approach that is really good at, like, universal economic ideas that would be resonant to all kinds of people, including on the right, but not being able to do the cultural appeal. And then some of the folks like Buttigieg who do the cultural appeal are often kind of a little bit weaker on the economy. They don't, you know, they're kind of more in that classic mold. I think what would be incredibly powerful is if you could have that kind of Bernie legacy, sweeping economic policy, but a kind of cultural approach that is not too rooted in city people, that is not too academia adjacent, that sounds like normal people, that isn't obsessed with, like, niche issues that don't affect most people, and that shows respect. This is, I believe my reporting has shown this. I wrote a whole book about this called the True American In a lot of these parts to talk about white grievance. This is a crisis of respect. How do I fit in the world that's coming? If a human being cannot answer that question, all bets are off. How do I fit in the world that's coming? Who am I? How am I seen? How will my children see me? How am I seen in this society? That is a crisis that happens actually often when we do progress, it is a byproduct of a side effect of progress. We've done a tremendous amount of progress in this country in the last 50, 100 years, but we have failed to manage a lot of people into that progress so that they actually feel like they could share their country instead of break it.

[A]

Yeah, no, I agree with you 100%. And when I heard Buttigieg the other day, you know, going after the Trump administration for eliminating the rule that, you know, you, you get, you know, you get money from the airlines if they screw you over. You know, I, I know it's a small thing, but that's the kind of stuff people remember and people understand. I, I, you know, I, I lived in Maryland for a while, and I tell people all the time, one of the things that made Larry Hogan such a damn popular governor in Maryland, he cut the tolls going over the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. There's just stuff like that. And I think the Democrats, you're absolutely right. I've just been a little too cute by half in trying to come up with an agenda that works for real working people. And I, you know, I think you've got your finger right on. And it's interesting. We both spoke to Ro Khanna, the news guy, and me wanted to just ask him 50 questions about the Epstein files. You asked very pertinent questions that I think get. Get at some really important issues.

[D]

Can I give you one example just of what you said about the policy thing?

[A]

Yeah. Yeah.

[D]

In Kamala Harris's very short campaign, she obviously did not have a lot of good cards to play, given how she was the hand she was given. But there was this idea that they made a big deal about, and I'm not picking on her, and I'm not picking on the campaign.

[A]

But.

[D]

But just as an example, one of the policy ideas was your. They wanted to propose something so that your medical debt could not be used against you on your credit score. And so they proposed that, and they were very excited about it.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

And then all these other people online were like, or we could just not have medical debt. I mean, you spent a lot of time out there in the world. How easy is it to explain in the communities you've been to in this country that your medical debt not being used in your credit score versus healthcare is gonna be free? There's gonna be no medical debt because.

[A]

Yeah. And they're also about giving tax credits to people so they can buy houses and so on. Why don't we address the fact that, you know, you can't afford housing anymore. Like a tax credit is not gonna help all that much. No, you're. Absolutely. It's. It's a great point. It's a terrific point. And I. You know, I've said this before. I suppose somebody might grab this clip and say, aha. See? But I really think, honestly, somebody ought to be just running on national health care the next time around. I don't know why. I mean, just. Just. Just do it. Just go for it. I mean, honestly.

[D]

Child care.

[A]

So tired of this.

[D]

Child care, daycare, elder care.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

All the care.

[A]

Yeah. And people. Oh, you get your government hands off by Medicare. Medicare is. Is. Is national health care. It's just for old people, you know, And I just. I. You get these insurance bills in the mail, and you look at the numbers, and I'm like, how is it $63.77 for this? And they. It's just a bunch of damn bean counters figuring this out in some office building in Philadelphia. And I. I just don't know. We. It should just be enough is enough, honestly. And I. I would love to see somebody just run on that.

[D]

When. When I was in College. I. I studied for one year overseas in England. I got sick. I didn't know what to do. Someone referred me to. You know, we got this thing called the nhs. You just go to this doctor. So I went to the doctor. It took care of me. And I went to the checkout like you do. You know, what do I sign, what do I pay, whatever. And they were like. And I. I knew they had a public health service, but I was a foreigner. I didn't live there. I'm not British. I was like. So I. I assume, you know, you're gonna hit me with this bill. I'm probably paying for all these other people, too. And they were like, nope, you're good.

[A]

Wow.

[D]

Thank you. Thank you. Have a great day. And I remember walking out and it was not just that, like, I was a college student, so a free thing was, like, very helpful. I remember actually how profound the moment was, because this society was expressing an idea to me in that moment. And the idea was, if you happen to be on this soil, you are cared for.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

They didn't check my id. They didn't know whether I was there for one day, whether I was a student. They didn't know anything about me. The idea was, if you're on this soil, you're not going to die of something we know how to cure.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

Because we wouldn't do that.

[A]

And I think people in this country are ready for that, honestly. You know, I think there's somebody saying right now, health care is a right. I mean, I think it is. And why. We punish people for. For being poor when they get in a car accident or something bad happens to them, have a baby and there's complications. It's bananas. It's so fucking nuts.

[D]

Yeah. I don't. I don't think we end fascism by killing anyone. I think we end fascism by saving lives by proposing to save lives by the number of lives that we would save if we have things like national health care in place.

[A]

Yeah. Anand, always great to talk to you, man. Let's not let too much. I think we let too much time pass since the last.

[D]

I know, let's do it. Let's do it more often, more often.

[A]

Great stuff. All right, Anand, we'll do it again soon. Thanks so much. Good to see you.

[D]

Thank you for having me.

[A]

All right. I feel like we could have just kept going and going and going, but I have to go somewhere, so I'm not even going to make this. This close very long. I did want to end by showing Donald Trump and the way he was welcomed in the uk. I don't know if we're, if my, my executive producer, illustrious executive producer Mac had put this up on screen, but.

[D]

Jeffrey Epstein, their friendship goes back to.

[A]

At least unreal the bricks, they don't hold back.

[D]

Speaking of not holding back and providing.

[A]

This is a different kind of health care and that it's, it is, it is like a balm. It is soothing to see the Brits just saying we're just going to go for it. And, and they, and some folks there projected Trump and Jeffrey Epstein onto Windsor Castle, which I, I have to assume is not legal. And you can get in a lot of trouble for, but way to go Great Britain. Way to go uk Way to show what democracy looks like, what free speech looks like, what freedom of expression looks like. The President of the United States of America needs to stop hiding the Epstein files. He needs to stop hiding the truth from the American people. Donald Trump, Cash Patel, Pam Bondi, JD Vance, you name it over and over again, they promised to release the Epstein files. And honestly, I mean, I don't, you know, maybe we could take a few ideas from the Brits. You know, we, we have done that over the years on any number of things. We should be projecting the, the goddamn Epstein files and Donald Trump and Epstein on buildings in Washington D.C. i'm sure he would go out absolutely apeshit and want to send the National Guard back in. But I just thought, you know, Anan was talking about the Brits there. I, I, I wanted to bring this up to, to show folks there is no reason and there's the signature that he says it's not my signature, it's not my signature. There it is right there. The same damn signature. Why in God's name do we still not have the Epstein files released? Why in God's name are these survivors and victims still wondering what the hell is going on? Why is Donald Trump mentioned in the Epstein files and we don't know what the hell is going on. We don't know why that is. And yes, there are some big issues to talk about. Yes, health care, economic independence, affordability, all of those bread and butter issues. I'm so glad I spoke to Anand about all of this wonderful discussion to have. But there's something fundamental about the President, United States hiding this kind of damning information from the public and it needs to be released, it needs to be put out to the public. There's a right to know here. And I just wanted to applaud our friends across the pond for making that crystal clear on the exterior of Windsor Castle. My goodness. Cheerio. And on that note, I want to thank my friends Katie Fang and Anand Girded us for joining me. Thanks all of you for watching. I'll see you tomorrow. I'm going to be traveling tomorrow. It's me. I'm going to be getting there. And I think we'll have a show and it's all going to work out. But I'll keep you posted if things slide a little bit, timing wise. But I think we'll be okay. But in the meantime, still reporting from Washington, I'm Jim Acosta. Have a good evening. Thanks for watching.