← The Jim Acosta Show
The Jim Acosta Show
MICHAEL FANONE, REP. EUGENE VINDMAN AND SPENCER KUVIN DISCUSS LATEST EPSTEIN FILES DEVELOPMENTS
01:08:44
Loading summary
Transcript137 lines
- [00:00]
Jim Acosta
Foreign.
- [00:05]
Welcome to the Jim Acosta Show. And Donald Trump is squealing like a pig. He is squealing over questions about the Epstein files and screaming at reporters who are pressing Donald Trump over his relationship with Saudi Arabia after that disgraceful visit from the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Meanwhile, Attorney General Pan Bondi is sounding a little fishy this this afternoon after she was asked whether she's going to release the Epstein files. Let's talk about some of this stuff with Michael Fanon, our good friend. Mike, good to see you. And Trump, he's squealing like a pig. What do you think? I mean, it's, it's something.
- [00:42]
Yeah.
- [00:42]
Michael Fanon
No, I mean, it's, I, it's not anything I didn't expect. I mean, he's been backed into a corner. He's, he's lashing out at anyone and everyone. You know, obviously, this Epstein thing, it seems to be the one story that, that he can't get rid of. And it probably because he's, you know, I heard somebody say the other day, Epstein is in the Trump files.
- [01:15]
Jim Acosta
Exactly. I mean, you know, is there anybody else mentioned more than, than Jeffrey Epstein, the Epstein, I guess Jeffrey Epstein is mentioned more than Donald Trump in the Epstein files, but I don't even think Ghis Maxwell is mentioned as much as Donald Trump is in the Epstein files.
- [01:32]
Michael Fanon
It is. And to hear him in this, like, very pathetic manner talk about, well, you know, I support releasing the files, but let's just stop talking about this and start talking about all of my accomplishments.
- [01:51]
Jim Acosta
Right. Like getting your ass kicked on the elections the other day. And. Yeah, you know, I mean, give me a break. What accomplished. Well, and, and you saw that video of him calling Catherine Lucy of Bloomberg Piggy. I mean, this, I mean, there's, there's been a series of these over the last several days where he's flipped out, raged out at reporters. And I mean, let's, if we have, let's, let's play the, the one from Friday on Air Force One where he, he flipped out on Catherine Lucy and called her Piggy. Let's, let's play that.
- [02:24]
Unidentified Speaker
And I had a very bad relationship for many years. But he also saw a strike because I was president. So he dictated a couple of memos to himself. Give me a break. You're going to find out what did he know with respect to Bill Clinton, with respect to the head of Harvard, with respect to all of those people that he knew, including JP Morgan Chase. Yeah, Jennifer, go ahead.
- [02:53]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, Mike, what'd you think when you saw, I Mean, I think you and I by now have PhDs and deciphering when Donald Trump is lying. I mean, he's clearly lying.
- [02:59]
Michael Fanon
He just looks, he's lying when he opens his mouth. I mean, let's, when his mouth opens and words come out or anything that can be discerned as a language, then you're sure to bet that he's, you know, he's not telling the truth. He's lying. But, I mean, it's just, I don't know, I mean, he's a vulgar person. And, you know, that was just another example of, you know, of him again, being questioned in a way that he's not comfortable being questioned and then resorting to name calling and vulgarity, which, hey, listen, I call people names all the time, but I'm also not the President of the United States and I'm also not being questioned about my presence in these files related to one of the worst child predators of our lifetime.
- [04:00]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, well, and also when you, when you used to talk to suspects, people you would arrest and they would flip out and go nuts. I mean, there's kind of a vibe to it, right? I mean, that's, he just, he sounds like he's had his hand caught in the cookie jar.
- [04:16]
Michael Fanon
Yeah. No, I mean, if I was to put my law enforcement hat back on, I mean, he, he's exhibiting every characteristic that there is. I mean, this is a textbook performance of somebody who is guilty. And not only are they guilty, but they now realize that their, their ability to disguise their guilt or in some way distance themselves from it is, is running out.
- [04:45]
Jim Acosta
Yeah.
- [04:46]
Michael Fanon
You know, the, the American people know, even his base is starting to see through the lies and the performance and they're calling him out on it and they're calling him to task. And, but, you know, I, listen, I also caution, people, listen, there is no institution and there is no scandal that is going to hold this president accountable for his crimes. It is going to take, you know, we, the people to remove Donald Trump from office and put an end to this insanity.
- [05:25]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, no, and I, and I do want to talk about this event you have. I think it starts tomorrow. We can put the graphic up. Mike's going to be at this. Remove the regime, Washington, D.C. i think this is tomorrow. Do I have my dates right through the 22nd through the end of the week. And a lot of great people are going to be involved with this, the Dropkick Murphy's and so on. But I think you're right, I think you're onto something there, Mike, because I mean, the Supreme Court has already given him carte blanche. They basically said, you can do whatever you want. I mean, there's this. The thought that is kicking around in my mind after they passed this thing, you know, to release the Epstein files is that he could violate the law and not, not release them. Because the Supreme Court has said, you can break the law. If you're president, you can break the law. Correct.
- [06:13]
Michael Fanon
I mean, I think that everything that was happening during the government shutdown was a strategy session as to how to deal with Donald Trump and his ties to Jeffrey Epstein and that coming to light and how to prevent that from coming to light. And I think that he realized that he wasn't going to be able to prevent Republicans in the House from voting to release these files and how bad that would look if he continued to take the position of, you know, no, we're not going to release the files. So he says, we're going to release the files. I think he's, he's told Pam Bondi and Cash Patel that this is on you, that it's going to be your responsibility now to make sure that these files aren't released. And I, you know, I would surmise, and, you know, I've spoken to people, people like Glenn Kirschner and others who I think are of the same thought process, that Cash Patel is going to reopen the investigation, or Pam Bondi is going to reopen the investigation into Epstein, and they're going to say, well, now that it's an open investigation, we're not going to release any of these files. And just a reminder to the viewers at home, Cash Patel testified, you know, before the Senate under oath that there was no new credible information that would justify reopening this investigation. And Pam Bondi has said similar things to that effect under oath. And now, you know, you'll see them reopen this investigation so that they can prevent Congress from obtaining the information that they have. You know, when it comes to grand jury testimony, witness testimony, you know, FBI agents, field agents, notes, I don't think we'll ever see that stuff. And if we do, it's because Donald Trump's name has been redacted from it.
- [08:17]
Jim Acosta
Right? Yeah. No, I tend to agree with you. And I mean, Pam, Bonnie was making this kind of noise earlier today. Let's, let's play a little bit of this because she was asked about, okay, so when are you guys going to start putting out the Epstein files? And I was waiting for, for her to start laughing in their, in the faces of these reporters. But, but she, this is what she said instead. Let's play this and we'll talk about.
- [08:38]
Spencer Kuvan
It by 30 days.
- [08:42]
Pam Bondi
We will follow the law. The law passed both chambers last evening. It has not yet been signed. But. So we will continue to follow the law again while protecting victims, but also providing maximum transparency.
- [08:57]
Spencer Kuvan
Follow up to that, Madam. Attorney General, the DOJ statement earlier this year saying that the files would not release mentioned the fact that the review of the documents and the evidence did not suggest that any additional investigation of.
- [09:13]
Jim Acosta
Third parties was warranted.
- [09:15]
Spencer Kuvan
What changed since then that you launched this investigation?
- [09:19]
Pam Bondi
Information that has come for information that there's information that new information, additional information. And again, we will continue to follow the law to investigate any leads, if there are any victims. We encourage all victims to come forward and we will continue to provide maximum transparency under the law.
- [09:41]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, I mean, Mike, the victims have been coming forward for the last 30 years. I mean, that last part there is when she, she was being asked about, you know, reopening the investigation to go after Democrats, and when she says we're going to follow the law, I mean, that's obviously horseshit. We'll talk about that in a few moments. About the, the Comey case. I mean, they did, they are not following the law in the Comey case. They're, they're trying to invent the law. And, you know, but, but when she says we're going to follow the law, that is, those are code words to Donald Trump sitting in the White House wondering whether, you know, know, he's. Pam Body is going to follow his maybe unspoken instructions to hold back on releasing these files, it seems to me. And they're going to figure out, as you were saying earlier, figure out some way to say, oh, it's, it's under investigation. You know, gosh, we can't, there are certain parts of this now that we can't release because of this, that and the other thing. And it seems like the fix is in.
- [10:36]
Michael Fanon
Oh, no doubt. I mean, I, I don't. Again, like I said, I don't think that they're going to release any documents that have Donald Trump's name on them. They are going to redact that information or withhold that information and claim that it has something to do with, you know, this open investigation based, based on new information. The only new information that they've received is that they know definitively that Donald Trump is, you know, uncomfortably mentioned too many times in those documents and that that information can't get out.
- [11:09]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, right. I mean, sort of like the, I Keep coming Back to the April 2011 email from Jeffrey Epstein to Ghislaine Maxwell that says that Donald Trump spent hours at Epstein's house with victim redacted. And I mean, you know, nobody has given an explanation for that. Nobody, nobody has said, this is, this is why. This is. Because there isn't a good one.
- [11:32]
Correct.
- [11:33]
Michael Fanon
And I mean, you know, and talking about Ghislaine Maxwell, I mean, look at the treatment she's received now under Donald Trump's Department of Justice, if you can even call it that anymore. You know, this is a person who is convicted child sex predator, somebody who trafficked underage girls for the purposes of engaging in sexual acts. You know, was sentenced to 20 years in prison and has now been transferred to a minimum security facility in which she is enjoying daily yoga, takeout, and all the comforts of probably better than a lot of Americans who are not convicted felons. And also in violation, clear violation of Bureau of Prisons policy as to how they house convicted sexual offenders.
- [12:42]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, yeah. I mean, if you arrested somebody like that and you found out they were getting this kind of treatment, I'm sure you would be pissed if you were the cop that made that arrest. Right, Mike? I mean, this is, again, thumbing the nose at law enforcement, giving the middle finger to law enforcement.
- [12:56]
Michael Fanon
I mean, it's giving the middle finger to the law enforcement, to law enforcement. But even worse than that, it's giving the middle finger to the victims of Lane Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. I mean, let's not forget, these were children. Children, despite what Megan Kelly says, they were children that were trafficked for the purposes of engaging in sex. And these were vulnerable children at that. These were children who came from broken homes, who were impoverished and were preyed upon by Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein and others.
- [13:35]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, no, that's exactly right. And, and, and these survivors have told these kinds of stories that it was because of the conditions that they were in as children, that that's what made them attractive to Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein as potential victims, as potential prey, basically, for these, these scumbags. I mean, we heard this yesterday. This is some of the video from the survivors yesterday up on Capitol Hill. They're holding up pictures of, of what they look like when they were kids so people wouldn't look at them as, as grown women and think, oh, well, you know, they're grown women. This happened when they were girls, like you said, despite what Megyn Kelly says, which is unfinished.
- [14:18]
Michael Fanon
I mean, just, you know, as, just as a former cop and Listening to the details, you know, as they come to light, I mean, I would say that this is the most egregious miscarriage of justice in my lifetime by law enforcement and, you know, and by, by the government. You know, these, these victims have been so mistreated and politicized, it's, it's sick. Yeah, the people that, the, the people that have conspired to keep this under wraps are sick.
- [15:00]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, there's no question about it. And the other thing that, I mean, that Pam Bondi really needs to be raked over the coals for is this Jim Comey case. Apparently, the Justice Department acknowledged that a full grand jury never reviewed the final indictment. This, according to the Washington Post, against James Comey, and that the revelation came during a court hearing in which the judge was asking the prosecutors about what appeared to be a missing portion of the transcript of the grand jury proceedings. This is all according to the Washington Post and the grant. This is what the Post says. The grand jurors had rejected an early version of an indictment charging Comey with three counts. Hours later, the grand jury four person signed off on a two count indictment charging Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding. The four person said at the time that a majority of the panel had approved those two counts. I mean, but this is like, are you kidding me? You're, this is how, this is how you secured an indictment against the former director of the FBI. So when she says we're going to follow the law, they're just making this up as they go along and they're.
- [16:08]
Michael Fanon
Just, yeah, this is a law. This is a lawless administration. You know, the rule of law means absolutely nothing to them. Pam Bondi is a corrupt sycophant for Donald Trump. Cash Patel is a corrupt sycophant for Donald Trump. You know, these people have destroyed the reputation of the Department of Justice and of the FBI. And, you know, originally, I remember looking at the, the indictment, the Comey indictment, which, you know, by the way, was like not, not even a full page, which is something I'd never seen before in my, you know, my career other than, you know, maybe like low level narcotics cases, which involved one officer and one defendant. You know, some, you would think that in the indictment of a former FBI director, they would include a little bit more than, you know, 2/3 of a page of material. That being said, I originally was pissed off that it wasn't just thrown out immediately, but I think that these, the judges that are involved in this case, I think they're playing the long game and they're allowing, you know, these proceedings to expose how corrupt this administration is and how corrupt this Department of Justice is in their pursuit of what is clearly a politically motivated prosecution that is 100% baseless. There are no facts to support any of the charges that were brought against him. And I think it's clear, it should be clear to anyone that, you know, Halligan was brought in for the sole purpose of securing this indictment because no career prosecutor would sign their name to it. And I think, you know, at the end of the day, she's going to end up at best without a law license, you know, at worst in, in prison. Although I would imagine Donald Trump, she'll be one of the ones on the long list of people pardoned by Donald Trump right before he leaves office, just like he did to the 77 individuals involved in the elector scheme and the falsification of, you know, of electors for, you know, for the purposes of, of trying to steal a free and fair election back in 2020.
- [18:46]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, well, and on that note, I was going to bring this up with you, Mike, because I mean, you know, that, that whole thing was a travesty, obviously in a disgrace. And, you know, it, it creates a, you know, permission structure to do it all over again. But there are also these, you know, the, the guys that pop up every now and then in the news. Another January 6th criminal was arrested. Again, this is in the Guardian. A man who took part in the January 6 attack on the Capitol was and was pardoned by Trump earlier this year has been arrested on multiple child sexual abuse charges in Florida, according to local authorities. This is coming out of the Guardian just today. The man, identified as 44 year old Andrew Paul Johnson was taken into custody in August in Tennessee and extradited to Florida where according to arrest records, he faces charges of lewd and lascivious child molestation of a child under 12. And it just, I mean, the, the details go on and on and the charges were first reported by the Intercept. But I mean, it's, it's sickening that these, these people get, keep reoffending and get arrested for horrendous crimes. I mean, I bring this one up because this involves child sexual abuse. I mean, these are the kind of people that he let out of prison. It's unreal.
- [20:06]
Michael Fanon
You know, Jim, it's sickening, but it's not surprising. And I say that because, you know, this is just another one of many examples that contradict the, you know, the narrative put out by the administration and by, you know, media outlets on the right, that the individuals that stormed the Capitol on January 6th were these proud, patriotic Americans that were good, wholesome people. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of these people were predisposed to violence. These were individuals who had violent criminal convictions in their backgrounds. People that were convicted of, you know, spousal abuse and people that were convicted of narcotics trafficking, a whole host of different offenses. In fact, each and every individual that was charged with assaulting me had prior convictions, some of them felony convictions. And so, you know, these were violent people. These were criminals. And it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that after receiving a pardon and now feeling emboldened, that they would go out and reoffend. You know, I feel bad for the victims of these individuals because they should be imprisoned and, and not out on the streets where they can continue to commit crimes and, and victimize other good, wholesome Americans.
- [21:38]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, no, and, and we're coming up on the fifth anniversary of January 6th. That's going to be here before you know it, folks. I mean, we're coming up on the holidays. When the holidays are over, January 6th will be here. And the story about January 6th is something that they're trying to whitewash, that they're trying to rewrite as we speak. And it seems to me, Mike, and I'm just. I'm just spitballing here and throwing this out as you and I are talking here, but I, I just hope that there's somebody, and maybe it's on us. Somebody needs to, you know, aggregate all of these stories, all of these cases of these guys who have reoffended, these criminals who have reoffended. That needs to. I mean, there needs to be a, a place where we keep all of that information in one spot so that history is preserved. I know you and I spoke at the University of Virginia a few weeks ago to retell your story, to make sure it's, it's. It's captured, it's on video. It's. It's not like this is just going to go into the ether anymore. But these other, these cases that keep popping up over and over again, those cases need to be talked about, too, because I want to get away with it.
- [22:43]
Michael Fanon
I mean, I have seen, you know, to the, to the credit of MSN now and NBC, there have been some reporters there and reporting done that have, you know, brought these stories to light at a national level, which is where they belong. That being said, you know, a lot in legacy media, I mean, we've talked about this countless times have abandoned, you know, the idea of, well, one, talking about January 6 and 2, talking about anything that, that disparages this administration in a way that they think is going to draw their error or a, a potential lawsuit. And so, you know, in a. I blame legacy media for, you know, the rapid erasure of January 6th and that story. I mean, if you remember, I mean, I think you were still at CNN when, you know me, Harry Dunn, Danny Hodges and Aquilina Gunnell were carted out pretty much every January 6th for the first two years afterwards. And then the coverage just disappeared and there was no references to January 6, no media requests on behalf of legacy media ever since. And so, you know, I would imagine that I'll probably be doing your show, maybe Don Lemon's show, maybe we could do something at the Capitol, because I'm damn sure that I won't be getting any requests from, from legacy media those days. But it's important to, to continue to tell that story, not for my benefit, it doesn't do shit for me, but for the benefit of Americans that either don't understand what happened that day or have been lied to and maybe are waking up in this moment because of the state of the economy, because of the, the promises that have gone unkept and the lies coming from this administration. Maybe now we can start reaching people that were unreachable five years ago.
- [25:07]
Jim Acosta
And I'll be very blunt. I mean, we saw this yesterday when he went after Mary Bruce, the ABC White House correspondent, when she was asking about the Saudis and Mohammed bin Salman and Trump went after her and called her fake news. And then he threatened to pull their ABC's broadcast license. And then the chairman of the SEC was chiming in and said, yeah, let's, let's pull their broadcast licenses in the old days. And, and this isn't that long ago of when news organizations had some balls and had a spine, they would tell the White House, whether it was Democrats or Republicans, if they tried to carry out those kinds of threats, these news organizations would tell them to go themselves. And the presidents of these news organizations would tell the White House, no matter who's in there, if they try to carry out those kinds of threats, they would tell them to go themselves. And that's what these news. Or I'm just telling you, I mean, that's telling the folks at home who are watching this that that's what these news organizations have to just tell them right now, go yourself. I mean, I, and I'm sorry to use that Kind of language. I know my Mike. But for folks who are watching. But that is. That's how the real world should work.
- [26:15]
Michael Fanon
And we were, you know, where's the. The solidarity amongst journalists in this country? I mean, you know, the old adage of their strength in numbers could not be more true in this moment. You know, if each and every reporter would stand shoulder to shoulder, and if. If one question is dodged, then the next reporter should forego whatever question they had and ask the same goddamn question and ask that question over and over and over again until Donald Trump chickens out and runs away from the press conference. Don't allow him to control the narrative and control the moment. You control the moment, and you can do it, because at the end of the day, Donald Trump has to come to you to get his information out. He can't keep taking questions from Lindell News.
- [27:04]
Jim Acosta
Right.
- [27:04]
Michael Fanon
You know, nobody gives a.
- [27:05]
Jim Acosta
About Lindell News.
- [27:07]
Unidentified Speaker
Right.
- [27:08]
Michael Fanon
Eventually. Which I didn't even know was a thing until apparently it is, but, yeah. Yes, Mike Lindell has a news outlet. I'm not sure.
- [27:16]
Jim Acosta
If you watch, you get a free pillow.
- [27:19]
Right.
- [27:19]
Michael Fanon
I think the pillow thing went out of business, but.
- [27:22]
Jim Acosta
Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah. I mean, I didn't want any of those shitty pillows anyway, so, you know.
- [27:28]
Right.
- [27:28]
And.
- [27:28]
Michael Fanon
And, you know, like, listen, I. I've never. Liked. I worked for the police department for 20 years, and, you know, at the administration level, I never expected shit from them, but I certainly expected, you know, some solidarity from my fellow officers. And it would be nice if these, you know, journalists, individual journalists, would just stand up for one another. You know, their. Their corporate leadership be damned. But this is, you know, this is one of those moments. And. And I think if they were to do that, they could look back on it, regardless of what their career outcome might be in the short term and say, hey, like, for one day, I got to act like Walter Cronkite.
- [28:16]
Jim Acosta
Exactly. You know, go for it. Why. Why take this shit? I. That. That was my thing. And, you know, maybe that's why I'm hosting a podcast in my home now, but, you know, my attitude is, like, you only live once. Do you really want to be remembered as the person who, like, crawled into the fetal position and. And. And. And just let him beat the. Out of you? Like, why I wouldn't be able to look myself in the goddamn mirror the other. And you're absolutely right. And you do see this from time to time when Trump went after me. Peter Alexander with NBC. I'll always give him credit to this day. Stood. Stood up, so said, you know, Jim's a good guy, blah, blah, blah. And then Trump said, I hate you, too. And honestly, who cares? It does not matter. We're not there to be their friends. But I, you know, when he called that reporter Piggy the other day, the other reporters in the press cabin on Air Force One should have said, that is not right. You should not. I mean, they should have said something to him in that moment. They're not going to throw you off the goddamn plane. They're not going to open up the plane door and throw you out.
- [29:17]
Michael Fanon
Just say, you know, I would have followed up with a question about his morbid obesity and just asked, you know, like, on the topic of pigs.
- [29:31]
Jim Acosta
You.
- [29:32]
Michael Fanon
You are disgusting, slovenly soup sandwich of a man.
- [29:40]
Jim Acosta
I mean, I've seen people show the show the pictures of his eyeball and a pig's eyeball. I don't know if you've seen that. I think the Good Liars. And then he, you know, anyway, he does that dance, too, which I just started to almost do, but which I shouldn't do, but, but the pig, pig's eye and his, I don't want to get into ad hominem attacks or anything here, but, like, he wears this orange makeup that looks like pig skin. I mean, there's that, too. It's not a good look.
- [30:07]
Michael Fanon
He smells like a pig. Adam Kinzinger says he smells like a pig. So he has one of the worst body odors of any human being. And I tend to, I, I, you know, like me.
- [30:22]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, he's a clean cut guy. You would think he would know. Man, oh man. Well, we've, we've gone off the deep end here with this conversation, but I'm sure the folks at home are enjoying it. But it's true. I mean, honestly, come on, guys in the White House press corps, we can do better than this. But I will say, Mary Bruce, excellent job questioning Donald Trump.
- [30:42]
Michael Fanon
That was fantastic.
- [30:44]
Jim Acosta
And Catherine Lucy, who a lot of folks may not know because she's not on TV all the time over at Bloomberg, I worked alongside her. She's a great reporter. She's, she's asked other questions that have gotten under his skin. I do know this. I believe she's asked some questions about Stormy Daniels that got under his skin. And so he already probably has it out for. I'm just going to tell people who may not understand the context, but he, he should not get away with berating people like this. And I'm waiting for somebody in the White House press corps to Say what's going on with the April 2011 email that says you spent hours at Jeffrey Epstein's house. What were you doing at his house? Like, you know, maybe don't stand up for that reporter who's next to you. Just ask another pertinent question. Ask another hard hitting question. That's another way to show solidarity. Yeah, yeah, no, I, I agree.
- [31:28]
Michael Fanon
There's a lot, I mean, is kind of sad in, in how Trump has evaded responding to the Epstein files and his presence in them a lot, you know, because he just simply hasn't been asked the questions.
- [31:49]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, totally. And you can't ask him questions where he's just going to start screaming at you have to ask some detailed questions. Bring, print out the email, bring it with you. I mean, you know, some of these folks, they know what to do, so they don't need me to tell them. But, and just show it to me. Here's your, here's the email. What's, what's this goddamn email all about? But anyway, my good. And let's show the graphic one more time. Mike's gonna be at this event down on the net. Is it down on the National Mall? Is that right? Do we have that correct?
- [32:16]
Michael Fanon
Yeah. So yeah, it begins tomorrow, 10am Tomorrow we're doing congressional visits and we, we have a group that's going to be meeting at the if, if you're familiar, there's a flair. The organization Flair has tents set up. They've been there since May. It's over by Union Station. The group's going to be meeting there and they'll be breaking off into smaller groups going to do congressional visits. I think from 10am probably until 2 or 3pm in the afternoon. Friday, there's a series of events. All of this is available@removetheregime.com if you guys want to go and check it out. And then Saturday is the, is the big, the big rally that's going to be at the Mall over by the Washington Monument. Dropkick Murphy's a band that has been very politically active really since its inception back in 1996. They're going to be performing as well as a whole host of others. So I will be there all three days and I hope that, you know, you can join me as well. What's different between this event and the no Kings rallies is that one, it's a centralized location. We're looking to get everyone into Washington D.C. but also we're coming there with a demand and the demand is the impeachment and removal of Donald Trump. And, and so we're going to be seeking to get members of Congress on the record, senators on the record as to whether or not they will support impeaching and removing Donald Trump. And if not, then they're going to have to answer to their constituents and to we the people.
- [34:10]
Jim Acosta
That's great. I'm sure the phones will be rolling, the cameras will be rolling. So I'm sure you get some good moments in all this. Mike, it's great to see you, man. Good to talk to you.
- [34:19]
Michael Fanon
Thanks for having me.
- [34:20]
Jim Acosta
Do it again soon. All right. Thanks, Mike. Appreciate it. That's the great Mike Fanone. Always enjoy having him on. Always gets me very close or basically in some serious trouble. Whenever we do one of these shows, which is great, I invite that. And it's all good. You know, as Mike and I were talking about a little bit there, Donald Trump also had this, a batshit crazy meeting with the crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman. Well, after some of the things that Donald Trump said during that Oval Office meeting, Congressman Eugene Vindman, the Democrat of Virginia, decided to go to the House floor, give a speech and talk about something that he's aware of. He says that Donald Trump and Mohammed bin Salman had a very suspicious phone call back in 2019. And Congressman Vindman and I spoke about this earlier in the day. And here's that conversation.
- [35:13]
Michael Fanon
Take a look.
- [35:17]
Jim Acosta
And joining us now is Virginia Democratic Congressman Eugene Veneman. Congressman, good to see you. Thanks so much for doing this.
- [35:24]
Thanks for having me back, Jim.
- [35:26]
Yeah, you bet. And I saw the remarks that you made last night about Donald Trump's meeting with Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman. And you had said, I guess in these remarks, I guess it was on the House floor that it was back during the first Trump administration that you reviewed the transcript of this phone call that occurred between Donald Trump and Mohammed bin Salman. And this was in, I think, 2019. And you said that there were alarm bells that were going off for you or you were very concerned about what you heard. What can you say? What can you tell us?
- [36:03]
Well, look, there are two calls and I've reviewed a number of different transcripts, but there are two that bothered me in particular. The one was the Ukraine call, an extortion call demanding a, a quid pro quo from Zelensky. And obviously we know that that call resulted in the president's first impeachment. And then this call with, with MBS after the murder of Washington Post reporter Jamal Khashoggi, an absolutely barbaric atrocious murder that occurred in the Turkish embassy or the Saudi embassy in Turkey. And I mean, I remember there was actually audio right of the screams of this reporter as he was being murdered and how, how appalling that was. And the, the president yesterday in his statements that are completely counterfactual because, you know, u. S. Intelligence agencies have come out saying that they believe very strongly that this was ordered by mbs. It's a. Was a killer capture operation that resulted in this, this Washington post reporter's death. At the time, Mr. Kogi was a Virginia resident, legal resident in the United States. And the, that that phone call was deeply disturbing between the president and his statements yesterday were also very deeply disturbing and frankly counterfactual to what we know and what the intelligence services tell us.
- [37:45]
And I do want to play a little bit of that video of Trump and MBS in the oval office yesterday, But I mean, just to peel back the onion a little bit, what was it that concerned you from that call? And we should remind viewers that this was part of your position with the national security council. If I have this right inside the Trump administration, you know, working along with the White House back in those days. And it was part of your job to go through these transcripts, review these calls from time to time. And that's where you saw this information and became alarmed by it. But what was it that was said between Trump and MBS that concerned you? I know you can't get into granular detail. You don't have the transcript in front of you and so on, but what can you say?
- [38:30]
Well, look, I was an active duty army officer assigned to the heart of the Trump White House during the first administration national security council staff. I was a deputy legal advisor and I, I can't get into the details of the call. The president. What I'm asking for is a president actually release the transfer of the call just like he did for the not so perfect Ukraine call so the American people can see what was said so there can be some accountability and closure for Mr. Khashoggi's wife and, and children that are left fatherless. And the long and short is that the president has since actually made his own public statements. So they're the, the Woodward book that came out, I believe is in 2020 where he said he saved MBS's ass. You think about that in the context of the very much intertwined relationship that the president has with Saudi Arabia and MBS and how he and his family have personally profited that are at the very least, conflicts of interest. Perhaps perhaps even more nefarious as, as outright corruption. And all of those things are a terrible recipe. And I think that the call, if the American people ever get a chance to read it, would be alarming. And the President needs to release it and have transparency.
- [40:03]
Well, let's play a little bit of that video between Trump and MBS yesterday. Just give everybody the context for this. I mean, this is when Trump said things happen when it came to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, which, as you said, the intelligence community of the United States as, as concluded that MBS ordered that, that he was basically responsible for it. Let's, let's play this, and then we'll talk about it.
- [40:25]
Pam Bondi
And your Royal highness, the US Intelligence concluded that you orchestrated the brutal murder of a journalist. 9, 11 families are furious that you are here in the Oval Office.
- [40:35]
Jim Acosta
Why should Americans trust.
- [40:36]
Unidentified Speaker
Who are you with?
- [40:36]
Pam Bondi
And the same to you, Mr. President.
- [40:37]
Unidentified Speaker
Who are you with?
- [40:38]
Pam Bondi
I'm with ABC News, sir.
- [40:39]
Michael Fanon
You're with who?
- [40:40]
Pam Bondi
ABC News, sir.
- [40:41]
Unidentified Speaker
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 have left. And when I, I've devoted 100% of my energy, what my family does is fine. They do business all over. They've done very little with Saudi Arabia. Actually. They could. I'm sure they could do a lot. And anything they've done has been very good. That's what we've done. We've built a tremendous business for a long time. I've been very successful. I decided to leave that success behind and make America very successful. And I've made America more successful by far than it ever was. And that it ever could have been. No matter who was president, there would be Nobody bringing in $21 trillion. That I can tell you right now. 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 like that.
- [41:41]
Jim Acosta
Just.
- [41:42]
Spencer Kuvan
You asked Mr. President to answer.
- [41:44]
Jim Acosta
You know, you know, what do you think about that, Congressman, when you, when you heard that? It sounds as though there's some conflict, is what you're saying, between what Trump said there and what was said in this call back in 2019. And it's also in conflict with the facts.
- [42:01]
Well, look, the President needs to release the transcript of this call and the American people can judge for themselves. But the President's, a number of the comments that he made are ludicrous, laughable on their face, that he has personally and his family have personally benefited from a number of different dealings they have with frankly, questionable regimes around the, the world. And he, he's talking about a Washington Post reporter, a Virginia resident, a, a law legal resident in the United States that was brutally murdered in the Saudi Embassy in Turkey and that intelligence services have assessed was ordered by mbs. MBS is the leader of an important country, Saudi Arabia. And we have to have a relationship with Saudi Arabia, I think, and then we have to communicate with Saudi Arabia like we communicate with other regimes and governments around the world. With Putin, with, with Xi in China, with North Korea, with Venezuela. We have to continue to engage. But that doesn't mean we whitewash or sugarcoat the nature of these regimes. We have to be very clear eyed about what is going on and we don't have to be best friends with these regimes that will throw a big.
- [43:29]
Dinner for him like we saw with.
- [43:31]
All of that roll on red carpet. And so, you know, on the call, it's just, you know, I don't think it would come as a surprise to anybody that the, that the President had more than one questionable call with a foreign leader.
- [43:46]
Yeah. And, and just to put a fine point on it, do you think that there were, I guess, some suggestions there of illegality in that phone call, quid pro quo type stuff that, I mean, that's what we saw with the Zelensky call. There, there was, there was a quid pro quo there. He got impeached for it. He still complains about it to this day. Was there that kind of an element to this call with mbs, would you say if. In general terms.
- [44:17]
Yeah, look, I would say that you look at what the President said. He said he saved his ass. And you look at the, the dealings that the President and his family have had with Saudi Arabia and how they've profited. I think you can draw your own conclusion from that.
- [44:36]
Yeah. Well, Congressman, that's interesting and I think you're absolutely right. I mean, the public does have the right to see this, this transcript. And I mean, I can't imagine that Trump's going to willingly turn it over. I mean, they did that with the Ukraine thing because it got so out of control politically. And this time, this time around, he just doesn't seem to care. I mean, look what's happening with the Epstein files that's been passed. And just today, Pam Bonney was saying things that sounded like little fishy and sounded as though that perhaps they're already laying the groundwork for not releasing the Epstein files. What's your sense of that state of play right now, whether we're, we're actually going to see that.
- [45:17]
Oh, look, it's not in the least bit surprising. Last night, when we voted on the bill to release the, the, the Epstein files, it came after months of dragging Republicans and Donald Trump kicking and screaming. I mean, they threw every roadblock. Not to mention the fact that they actually didn't even need that the law to land on the President's desk. They could have released it on their own, but instead, ultimately, when the President saw the writing was on the wall that he was going to have tons of defections, that he decided to step back tactically, allow the vote, endorse the vote in the, in the Senate, in the House, and sign it, but without any real inclination to actually execute and follow the law. And so I think that's where we're at now. This was the first sort of salvo. And, you know, I think tactically the President thinks that, you know, by letting it go forward that he, this thing will die. But actually what he did was he enshrined into law the release of the Epstein documents and that now he's going to have to comply whether he likes it or not, and that the American people will demand that these documents be supplied and the President and Republicans will pay for it at the ballot box if there is not full transparency by the midterm elections next year.
- [46:45]
Yeah. And I was going to say, I know you've only been in Congress for a short while. You were elected as there was a big Republican wave that took place and you were one of the lone Democratic bright spots when you came into office. So you've only been in Congress for a short time, Congressman, but I, I'm racking my brains to think of another time when this many Democrats and Republicans voted for anything.
- [47:10]
Yeah, I mean, look, near, near unanimous. There was one guy that voted against it, and I think he wanted to be the, that. That was probably about publicity.
- [47:21]
Yeah.
- [47:21]
And so I think this is a tactical mistake by the President thinking that this was going to get, this is going to get glossed over if they allowed this law to get passed. And ultimately the American people, the demand for transparency will continue. I will tell you, the women in the gallery that were demanding Transparency that were pushing this. They're going to continue to demand transparency. They, they deserve accountability and, and justice. I mean, as a former prosecutor, I can tell you that, you know, victims. To be able to step up and to be able to say that I was, I was victimized in, in this context is extremely hard, and it's rare. And that these are brave women that have, that have done this, that have fought for their own dignity, and I don't see any prospects that that will stop. And they're, they're owed their dignity and their own justice.
- [48:26]
Yeah. And just finally, I mean, I know that Trump has come after you. He's come after your brother, Alexander Vindman. And, you know, there was a development in the Comey case where it was, it was, it was announced today that, you know, the judge has some problems with the way the prosecution has handled that case, the way the Justice Department has handled that case. And it sounds as though that the grand jury did not see all of the information that resulted in that indictment. And, I mean, this is, this is extraordinary stuff. And I'm just wondering, as somebody who's been on the receiving end of Trump coming, coming after you and your brother, your thoughts on it? It looks as though this Comey case is coming apart at the seams. And, yeah, I mean, this is another. I mean, they're, they're claiming vengeful prosecution, and it sounds as though the judge may rule in that fashion.
- [49:22]
Look, just on the, on the basic facts that I'm aware of this and, and the appointment of the prosecutor and, and the investigation, how all these things went down, I think that there is, there's going to be a very strong case that the prosecution proceeded in, in irregular, potentially unlawful manner. I think this is the start of litigation as it relates to potentially, you know, bar licenses and accountability for some of the lawyers involved. And the president has weighed in directly. When I was at the White House as, as a deputy legal advisor, we had a, a firewall between the White House and the Department of Justice in contacts about any particular case. And all of that has gone by the wayside. That, that no longer exists. That Department of Justice right now is taking its orders directly from the White House. And that is not how the system is designed to work. That is not how you keep partisan politics out of the legal system. And the legal system is going to respond accordingly. You're going to have judges, including this judge and others around the country that are seeing vindictive prosecution, and these cases are going to start to get thrown out.
- [50:46]
Yeah, no, I Think you're right. Comey may be the first one we'll see. But Congressman Eugene Vi, really appreciate your time and keep us posted on how this develops with that call transcript. It sounds like there's another fishy so called perfect phone call that needs to be investigated here. But thanks for bringing it to our attention. Appreciate it.
- [51:05]
Thanks, Jim. Appreciate it.
- [51:11]
Yeah, I mean, as you heard from Congressman Vindman there, he, he could not go into a lot of the details about what he read in that transcript of that call between Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, and Donald Trump during that first Trump administration back in 2019. But we're going to stay on top of this because it was because of the lies that Donald Trump was telling, you know, in the Oval Office that prompted Congressman Vindman to go out and make this statement. And it was an extraordinary statement to say that there is yet another problematic phone call, as you described it, between Trump and a foreign leader. So we're going to stay on top of that. I want to bring in Spencer Kuvan, who we've spoken with before. And there's Spencer right there. Spencer, it's good to see you. It looks like. Is he wrapping up a meeting? Right there. Spencer, can you hear me? It's Jim Acosta. Spencer, are you there?
- [52:11]
Spencer Kuvan
I'm here, Jim. Just give me one second. Okay, I apologize. I'm on a phone call. I just want to gotta finish. Okay.
- [52:16]
Jim Acosta
Oh, no problem, no problem.
- [52:19]
Spencer Kuvan
All right.
- [52:19]
Jim Acosta
Well, we'll go to Spencer in just a moment. But Spencer is an attorney who has represented survivors and victims of Jeffrey Epstein over the years down in Florida. We spoke with him over the summer and he was a guest that sparked a lot of interest. A lot of viewers watched that and gave us a lot of comments on that. And it was because of a lot of what Spencer had to say during that interview. But it goes back to what, you know, has happened on this show. I will tell you is back in July, early July, when Donald Trump and the Justice Department put out that statement and said there's nothing to see here with the Epstein files. And here we are all these months later and there's Spencer Kuving. He joins us now. Spencer, great to see you. Sorry about that. We came to you a little too early.
- [53:02]
Spencer Kuvan
He popped right. You popped right in on me.
- [53:04]
Jim Acosta
Sorry.
- [53:05]
Spencer Kuvan
Was doing the work of the people at that moment.
- [53:07]
Jim Acosta
I hear you. Well, appreciate it and great to catch up with you again. It was a great conversation that we had earlier this year. And here we are all these months later, still trying to see if these Epstein files are going to get released. And as I was just telling the viewers a few moments ago, and as we talked about at the last time, you represented a lot of the survivors and victims in this case. And I'm just kind of curious, I mean, just to start off on this, your response to this Passing the House, passing the Senate. As of this recording right now, Trump has not signed it yet. We're waiting to see when that's going to happen. He's expected to sign it. But your thoughts on all of this? I mean, it is a lot of movement than we, we haven't really seen in a long time.
- [53:50]
Spencer Kuvan
Yeah, I mean, look, it's, it's a positive move in the right direction. But, you know, as I've always said on behalf of the clients I've represented, you know, they're cautiously optimistic when it comes to the federal government and keeping the promises that the government has told them that they would keep in this particular circumstance. You know, this entire process has been a monumental waste of time, to be perfectly honest, because the president could have easily signed an order releasing this information had he not fought the release of the information to begin with and make Congress go through the efforts that they did to actually pass a law to make sure that this information got released. But now they have to be cautiously optimistic as to what will be released. Right. So they're, they're being told that they have to release information, but as we know, the federal government can hold back information of an active investigation or privacy issues, and then we don't know what they're holding back.
- [54:49]
Jim Acosta
Well, yeah, and Pam Bondi, the attorney general, you know, who used to be the attorney general down in your state and has been a very loyal cabinet member for Donald Trump. I mean, she was saying earlier today, well, we've, we've opened up these investigations into Democratic figures that Donald Trump called for. And that means that, you know, there's a, there's an active investigation again. And she was making this kind of noise that, well, we're, we're going to follow the law. Let's, let's play this. And I'll get your reaction to it, because it was, the wording was very interesting.
- [55:17]
Spencer Kuvan
Yeah. By 30 days, we will follow the law.
- [55:22]
Pam Bondi
The law passed both chambers last evening. It has not yet been signed. But, but we will continue to, to, to follow the law again while protecting victims, but also providing maximum transparency.
- [55:38]
Jim Acosta
And what did you think about that, Spencer, when you heard that? I mean, that was, it's vague.
- [55:43]
Spencer Kuvan
You know, she's being Purposefully vague.
- [55:47]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. I mean, and. And it. It makes it sound as though they could say, well, you know, hey, sorry, guys. Yes, we know this passed the. The House and the Senate and the President, apparently, you know, if and when he signs it, it becomes law. But then it could run into all sorts of procedural hurdles. They could say, you know, it's part of this investigation or that investigation, or things have to be redacted and we just don't see the whole damn thing.
- [56:13]
Spencer Kuvan
Exactly, exactly. And that's the real issue, right, is, you know, it's always one step forward, two steps back when it comes to the victims and their rights. And, you know, what really aggravates the victims every time I speak with them about what's going on, what aggravates them to no end is the fact that the government seems to be hiding behind their privacy rights and saying they're doing it to protect their privacy rights. The reality is the victims want this information disclosed. It's real simple. Redact a name or blur out a picture in the face. It's not real hard to protect the victims here, but they're making it sound like it's some real difficult process to protect the rights of the victims.
- [56:54]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. And. And one of the reasons why I reached out to you, I reached out to you before all of the. The legislation got through the Congress was there was this. This dump of emails from the Epstein Estate that we saw last week. And I've been beating the drum on this one particular email. I know others have pointed to it as well, but I think it is highly critical. And it is this April 2011 email from Jeffrey Epstein to Ghislaine Maxwell that says, donald Trump has spent hours at my house with victim redacted. And of course, the Epstein Estate was able to. They were able to redact some names here, or the Oversight Committee was able to redact names here. And, you know, I'm just curious what you thought of that, because to me, it's. It's damning stuff. This is before Donald Trump was a political figure. And Ghislaine Maxwell says, you know, I've thought about that. The dog that hasn't barked and so on.
- [57:43]
Spencer Kuvan
Yeah. And, you know, look, we know that the FBI and the Department of Justice has photographic evidence in their custody that was taken from multiple safes that Jeffrey Epstein had. He had a safe at his Manhattan home. He had one here in Palm beach. And we know that he had a secure facility off site in the Virgin Islands. They have all of the material from those safes. And we know that there were photographs in them. We know that there were security video kept from inside of his various different homes on computer hard drives. And they've already told the American public that they've got hundreds of hours of security video that they've maintained. So look, you know, Epstein saying one thing about Trump, that's one issue. But if we could see the photos, if we could see the video, I think that the American people would look at it a little bit differently.
- [58:39]
Jim Acosta
And judging by his reaction to the way he's been going after reporters and calling people piggy and flipping out on reporters when they're, when they ask him about the Epstein files, what does that say to you? And what do you, I mean, do you hear anything from the survivors and the victims who, who say, what the hell is that? Because I, that's what I keep coming back to.
- [58:58]
Spencer Kuvan
Well, I can just tell you as an attorney practicing for, you know, so going on 30 years and cross examining literally thousands of witnesses before, for when a witness starts getting upset and starts calling people names or starts getting angry at a situation, it's because you're poking in the right place and you should be asking even more questions and you should be directing those questions to the witness even more pointedly. So it just shows me that he's got some level of guilty conscience that he's afraid of talking about this issue.
- [59:29]
Jim Acosta
And out of those documents that came out, we know that I was talking to journalist Tara Paul Mary about this the other day. The documents that came out from the Epstein estate, that's different than the Epstein files. Epstein files is far more expansive and as you said, as photographs and videos and so on. What is it that I guess first of all stands out to you from the emails that were released last week? And also, you know, how is it, how does it differ from the files themselves?
- [59:56]
Spencer Kuvan
So the emails that was, that were just dumped out from the Epstein estate, the estate had those emails because they were from Jeffrey Epstein's own personal email account. So that is very different than what the FBI collected when the investigation began here in Palm Beach, I represented victim number one, who went forward to police and started this whole thing. And when the police refused to prosecute it from the State Fed stepped in and started their investigation. They interviewed over 40 young girls, over 40. And they had prepared an indictment that they were going to file against Jeffrey Epstein before the sweetheart deal got entered. So all of those investigative memos, all of those interviews with all of those victims, all of the evidence they collected during that initial phase of the case. And then subsequently, when they re arrested him later on, many years later, they then obtained all of this documentary and video evidence, photographs, computer hard drives, all of that. Then all of that had to be reviewed by the FBI and the Department of Justice to determine what they had. So there's going to be investigative memos summarizing those materials, reviewing the, telling the people in the FBI who is in these videos, what's on those videotapes, those summary memos. All of this is the information that the Department of Justice is just sitting on and refusing to release.
- [61:26]
Jim Acosta
And the sheer volume, I mean, the, the emails that came out, the number of times that Donald Trump's name is mentioned, it's unbelievable. I think different news outlets have, you know, counted up the, tallied up the times he's mentioned, and he's mentioned as much or more than just about anybody else. He's all over these files. What does that say to you? And I mean, because it says to me, it's something that I've heard from a number of people from South Florida from, from the Palm beach community that was just common knowledge that Trump and Epstein were friends, they were close. You know, he tries to point the finger at Democrats and so on, but it, it's astonishing how, how much he's mentioned, but maybe it shouldn't be so astonishing. And maybe people in Florida say, ah, no, see, we knew this.
- [62:11]
Spencer Kuvan
Yeah, yeah. I mean, it really was no surprise. I can tell you that in the original litigation that I was involved in on behalf of, of one of the victims, we actually issued a notice of deposition for Donald Trump at that time, because we knew that that relationship existed back then. This was before he was ever a political candidate or even a, a whiff that he might run for any office whatsoever. We just knew that he was a person of interest at the time because they were very close and they were socializing together. In addition to that, when you look at the sequence of events of how this played out, you had a candidate, Donald Trump, who was clamoring for the release of this information so the public could see it. Everybody voted for Trump that voted, wanted that release of information, including some of the victims voted for him because they wanted it to be released. It was only until he got into office and was briefed on what was actually in those files that he reversed his position. So that's got to tell you something about what's in those files and why he would reverse his position all of a sudden once he actually knew what was in him.
- [63:20]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. And do your clients think that they're any closer to getting to the bottom of this that what happened in Washington this week is going to matter. At the end of the day, you.
- [63:29]
Spencer Kuvan
Know, it's one extra step in the right direction. But their entire lives for the last 20 years has been one step forward, two steps back. So it's a wait and see. You know, I think that Trump's going to sign this bill whether it's tonight or tomorrow or whenever, and he's going to, you know, talk about how great it is and how he's signing it and how it's fantastic for the victims. And then we're going to have to just see what the Department of Justice does with it, because if they refuse to release documents based on pending investigations or based upon a false premise of privacy issues regarding the, the victims, then I think that there may be some litigation that ensues based on this new law by the victims or by the general public or maybe press outlets like yourself that says, listen, you need to follow this new law.
- [64:19]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, but as we know, the Supreme Court has told him he can violate the law. So, you know, there is that. But, you know, you have to have hope in all of this. Well, Spencer Cuban, always appreciate the time. Thank you very much. Sorry, we popped in there a bit little too early.
- [64:32]
Hope.
- [64:32]
I don't think we caught anything that you didn't want to say.
- [64:34]
Spencer Kuvan
No, you're, you're all good. It was, it was another lawyer on the phone.
- [64:38]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. Well, we appreciate it so much. Thank you for your time. Thank you.
- [64:41]
Spencer Kuvan
Pleasure.
- [64:42]
Jim Acosta
All right, that's Spencer Cuvin. And always appreciate talking to him. He represents a lot of the survivors and the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. And of course, they're now trying to see whether or not Donald Trump, members of Congress, whether this action that was taken this week, this historic vote that was taken this week is going to result in some measure of truth coming out, some measure of justice being served for these victims and these survivors who have waited for such a long time. We were showing the video of. I was up there at the press conference up on Capitol Hill yesterday. And to see these faces. There's the brother of Virginia Giuffre right there. There's Jess Michaels, who's been on this program a number of times. They were holding up the pictures of the faces of themselves when they were young girls so the public can see, you know, these aren't women that we're talking about here. These are girls who were abused. And the truth needs to come out. It must come out. And Donald Trump, you're running out of time. You're running out of excuses. And it is time for you to sign this legislation. It is time for you to face accountability. And if accountability means the truth coming out and not being very pleasant for you, then that's what needs to. That's what needs to take place. And of course, I know a lot of Americans out there are deeply suspicious and they have every right to. When Pam Bondi is out there in front of the cameras saying, we're going to follow the law, we're going to follow the law, what that says to me is they're not going to follow the law. It says to me they're not going to obey the law. It says to me they're going to violate the law. Because the Supreme Court has said that Donald Trump, you have carte blanche. You have immunity. You have presidential immunity. You can do whatever you want. You can do as you please. You are a king. That is what the Supreme Court said. And so keep that in mind, folks, every step of the way. Yes, there's this whole issue of Pam Bonney and whether she's going to hold back legis, you know, investigative materials and so on. But please keep in mind that this is existential. This is constitutional. When the Supreme Court invented law and said that Donald Trump is above the law, that he doesn't have to follow the law, remember, that may be in the back of his mind in all of this, that he could sign a law and then violate it. And if he does, we'll be on top of that and hold his feet to the fire as we always do. Thank you all for watching. Really appreciate it. My thanks to Mike Fanon. My thanks to Congressman Eugene Vindman and to Spencer Kuvan. And thanks to all of you for watching. Still reporting from Washington, I'm Jim Acosta. Have a good evening. I'll see you next time.
- [68:04]
Michael Fanon
Sa.