Trump Accuses Democrats of "SEDITION" with Former Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Epstein Files Investigative Reporter Julie K. Brown.

Summary

The Jim Acosta Show – Episode Summary

Episode Title: Trump Accuses Democrats of "SEDITION" with Former Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Epstein Files Investigative Reporter Julie K. Brown
Date: November 20, 2025
Host: Jim Acosta
Guests: Alberto Gonzales (Former U.S. Attorney General), Julie K. Brown (Investigative Reporter, Miami Herald)

---

Main Theme

This episode tackles explosive recent events involving President Donald Trump accusing Democratic lawmakers of “sedition,” the fallout over the Justice Department’s handling of high-profile cases against political enemies, and the saga surrounding the long-awaited release of the Epstein files. Jim Acosta draws on insights from Alberto Gonzales on constitutional order, law, and political division, and from Julie K. Brown on the implications of the Epstein investigations and Trump’s erratic conduct.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump’s Accusations of Sedition Against Democrats

• [00:00–02:31]
  • Trump posted on social media accusations of “seditious behavior” punishable by death toward Democratic lawmakers who released a video affirming the military’s duty to refuse illegal orders.
  • Acosta plays the lawmakers’ video, which emphasized upholding the Constitution and refusing unlawful orders.
  • Notable quote (Rep. Kelly, [02:04]):

    "No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution."

• Analysis with Alberto Gonzales
  • Gonzales categorically rejects Trump’s claim that the video constitutes sedition, stating such guidance to refuse unlawful orders is both legal and necessary.

    “As a general matter, if an order is clearly unlawful, the military has an obligation not to follow that order.” — Gonzales [03:50]

  • Concern is raised over the normalization of incendiary rhetoric from a President.

    “This kind of rhetoric...would have been unacceptable...the commander in chief should speak…to unify our country.” — Gonzales [04:38]

  • Gonzales calls for constitutional checks on Trump’s power.

    “Maybe at some point, other branches of government will wake up and see that this is an individual that needs to be checked under the Constitution.” — Gonzales [06:00]

2. DOJ Under Trump & The James Comey Prosecution

• [06:24–09:23]
  • Discussion of DOJ mishandling in the prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey. The grand jury reportedly did not see the final indictment version.
  • Gonzales laments the departure of experienced DOJ personnel and loss of professional standards.

    "It's embarrassing to the men and women who work at the Department of Justice...to see this kind of conduct." — Gonzales [07:36]

  • Suggestion that the new U.S. attorney was chosen for loyalty over competence.

3. Immigration Raids and Latino Fears

• [09:23–14:28]
  • Acosta and Gonzales reflect on a student event at James Madison University, where Latino students voiced fear due to aggressive ICE raids.
  • Reports that ICE raids under “Operation Midway” mostly targeted non-criminal immigrants ([10:23]), contradicting Trump’s claimed focus on dangerous criminals.
  • Gonzales, as the first Latino Attorney General, calls the operation “a disaster.”

    “The way these raids are being conducted without any kind of precision...really painted a picture of a government out of control." — Gonzales [11:26]

  • Emphasis on respecting the dignity and humanity of immigrants.

    “We all have value. And that value has to be respected.” — Gonzales [12:15]

  • Gonzales reveals his own discomfort as a Latino in public, mistrustful due to the administration’s attitude toward minorities.

4. Bipartisanship in Memorials and the Era of Division

• [14:28–17:23]
  • Reflects on Dick Cheney’s funeral, which saw Republicans and Democrats showing civility, a contrast to today’s climate.
  • Gonzales urges continued efforts to bridge divisions:

    “While we may not like it...at the end of the day, we are one country. And to be successful, we need to work together.” — Gonzales [16:08]

  • He notes cracks forming within Trump’s support and lists potential pressures, including the Epstein files and public dissatisfaction.

5. Corruption and Governance under Trump

• [17:23–19:43]
  • Gonzales accuses the administration of prioritizing personal enrichment over national interest.

    “The level of corruption…I think, is astounding and historical.” — Gonzales [18:53]

  • Predicts a wave of pardons for Trump’s associates before leaving office.

---

Interview with Julie K. Brown – The Epstein Files

[20:06–41:35]

a. Trump’s Reluctant Release of Epstein Files

• Trump only signed the bill under considerable public pressure.
• Victim advocacy and public PSAs, like the one aired during Monday Night Football, shifted the political tide.

  “I didn't think he would do it unless he was under duress, let's put it that way.” — Julie K. Brown [21:27]

b. Extent of Disclosure

• DOJ signaling it will “follow the law” raised suspicions about selective redactions and withholding.
  • Law mandates broad disclosure, including even third-party names.

    “There isn't very—I mean, even names that are in there, third party names aren’t supposed to be redacted.” — Brown [22:53]

• Brown warns DOJ may still try to withhold damaging material.

c. Trump’s Ties to Epstein

• Hundreds of Trump mentions in emails; some victims clarify no wrongdoing by Trump but the frequency raises questions.

  “Trump’s name is mentioned more than anybody else, double anybody.” — Brown [24:50]

• Brown theorizes Trump’s current distress is linked to fear of disclosure.
  • Surveillance and wiretap evidence may exist beyond what’s been released.

d. Trump’s Conduct and Suspicions of a Cover-Up

• Brown and Acosta point to Trump’s aggressive rhetoric (“Piggy” remark to a reporter) as evidence of panic.

  “I just can't explain it other than…there’s something there, you know, because it doesn’t make any sense. It’s too over the top...” — Brown [30:15]

• Speculation over possible incriminating evidence, not just about Trump but potentially close associates or family.

e. Ghislaine Maxwell, Pardons, and the Web of Complicity

• Brown predicts Trump will eventually pardon Maxwell, noting his refusal to rule it out.
• Maxwell’s potential trove of evidence, and time to secure it, noted.
• Comparison: Obama or Bush would face impeachment for similar handling of such a scandal.

  “If this was happening in any other administration…Bush…I mean, there would be impeachment hearings already. We’re in new territory…” — Brown [37:36]

f. Systemic DOJ Manipulation and Institutional Damage

• Brown and Acosta assert that DOJ and FBI have been co-opted to serve Trump’s personal interests, prioritizing attacks on critics, even targeting students and entire universities.
• The handling of the Epstein affair is unprecedented in U.S. history.

g. Public Reaction & Changing Political Alliances

• Survivor Jenna Lisa Jones, once a Trump voter, feels “disappointed and outraged” by his handling of Epstein fallout.

  “She said he was a national embarrassment…Marjorie Taylor Greene nodding her head in agreement.” — Acosta [40:57–41:10]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Alberto Gonzales on the normalization of extremism ([04:38]):

  “We’re all getting kind of numb, and that’s dangerous because this kind of rhetoric…would have been unacceptable. But this is the way that he communicates.”

• Jim Acosta on the state of America ([13:42]):

  “The fact that a former Attorney General of the United States has the thought…that because I look Latino, I have to concern about the way I dress…that’s a hell of a statement.”

• Julie K. Brown on the Epstein files ([24:50]):

  “Trump’s name is mentioned more than anybody else, double anybody…if nothing else, it raises questions about his complicity…”

• Brown on government manipulation ([37:36]):

  “If this was happening in any other administration…there would be impeachment hearings already. We’re in new territory here with what…American democracy [is facing].”

---

Additional Segments & Timestamps

• Corruption and Self-Enrichment ([17:23–19:43]): Gonzales details Trump’s self-serving governance.
• Trump’s “Piggy” Remark to Reporter ([29:01–30:11], [42:28–43:32]):
  • White House spokesperson’s defense is mocked by Acosta as “gaslighting.”

    “Calling a journalist piggy is not openness and frankness. It is offensive and appalling, and it’s conduct unbecoming of a President.” — Acosta [43:32]

• Swastikas Downgraded as 'Potentially Divisive' by US Coast Guard ([43:32–end]):
  • Strong condemnation by Acosta for what he calls a new low in Trump’s administration.

---

Takeaways for Listeners

• The episode underscores acute dangers in the normalization of extreme rhetoric and constitutional violations at the highest levels of government.
• The DOJ is depicted as compromised, riddled with inexperience and politicization.
• Trump’s alleged criminality and panic over the Epstein files form the narrative’s undercurrent.
• Julie K. Brown provides invaluable context for just how deep and far-reaching the Epstein saga remains, particularly with the threat of buried secrets and looming pardons.
• The show closes with a broad warning about the corrosion of American democratic standards and the imperative for public vigilance and accountability.

---

Listeners are left with:

• A chilling portrait of contemporary American governance under Trump.
• Insight into the systemic compromises of the DOJ.
• A reminder from both guests about the importance of upholding democratic and constitutional values, even in the face of intimidation and corruption.

---

(All timestamps are approximate and exclude advertisements and non-content segments.)

Transcript

[A]

Foreign. Welcome to the Jim Acosta show. And Donald Trump has done it again. He has put out some social media posts today that has people obviously outraged here in Washington on both sides of the aisle. Earlier in the day, he put out some truth social posts saying that Democrats up on Capitol Hill who have served in the military who put out a video saying that members of the military do not have to follow unlawful orders. Trump has responded to that with some truth social posts accusing those lawmakers of seditious behavior at the highest level. And he follow up that post with a tweet that said seditious behavior punishable by death. I'm joined now by the former attorney general under George W. Bush, Alberto Gonzalez. Mr. Attorney General, great to see you. Thanks so much for coming out. We're going to talk about other stuff, too, but wanted to get into that as well. But thanks for your time.

[B]

It's good to be here. Good to see you, Jim.

[A]

Yeah. So let's play this video of what these members of Congress are saying and then we'll dive into this. Senator Mark Kelly.

[B]

Representative Chris Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander.

[C]

Representative Chrissy Houlahan.

[A]

Congressman Jason Crow. I was a captain in the United.

[B]

States Navy, former CIA officer, former Navy.

[A]

Former paratrooper and Army Ranger, former, former.

[C]

Intelligence officer, former Air Force.

[A]

We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community.

[B]

Who take risks each day to keep Americans safe.

[C]

We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk.

[A]

This administration is pitting our uniform military.

[B]

And intelligence community professionals against American citizens like us.

[A]

You all swore an oath to protect.

[C]

And defend this country Constitution.

[A]

Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from.

[B]

Right here at home.

[A]

Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.

[C]

You can refuse illegal orders.

[B]

You must refuse illegal orders.

[C]

No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.

[B]

We know this is hard and that.

[A]

It'S a difficult time to be a public servant.

[C]

But whether you're serving in the CIA.

[A]

The army or Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.

[C]

And know that we have your back because now more than ever, the American people need you.

[D]

We need you to stand up for.

[A]

Our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans. Don't give up.

[B]

Don't give up. Don't give up.

[C]

Don't give up the ship.

[A]

So it's a powerful video. Obviously, these are Democrats. You know, they're opposed to what Donald Trump is doing, Mr. Attorney General. But you know Trump has been testing the bounds of the Constitution. As you know, since coming back into the White House, he's put American troops on American streets and so on. And I'm just curious your thoughts on Trump putting out those kinds of truth social posts, you know, calling that video sedition. I mean, it's obviously not seditious sedition or seditious behavior.

[B]

No, I don't. I don't believe it. That it is. Listen, if during the war on terror, for example, I mean, we captured a lot of people once they were in our custody, it would have been unlawful to execute them without any kind of process. If they were posing absolutely no threat. And if we were ordered to execute them, it would have been not only appropriate, it would have been required that that order be disobeyed. So there are certain orders that are going to be clearly unlawful, and. And you have a duty not to follow those orders. Where it can get somewhat complicated is someone may give an order that is arguably lawful, and someone decides, well, I don't believe it is lawful, but at that point, you know, it's possible you'll have some kind of military proceeding or something like that, and there'd be a determination made, and you might be right or you might be wrong, but you'd be willing to suffer the consequences. But as a general matter, if an order is clearly unlawful, the military has an obligation not to follow that order.

[A]

Yeah. And what do you think of Trump putting out those kinds of tweets, talking about sedition and that it's punishable by death? It sounds as though he's calling for the execution of Democratic lawmakers. I mean, that's what it sounds like.

[B]

Well, I suppose he's forgotten the lessons of similar kinds of statements and, you know, accusations that have led to violence and people actually being hurt, being killed. And so you have to be very, very careful about your words. In terms of how do I respond to it. Personally, I think we're all getting kind of numb, and that's dangerous because this kind of rhetoric certainly in the past would have been unacceptable. And. And. But this is the way that he communicates to the American people. And for what? And American people either don't care or they simply accept it. I don't know. I just. I think it's unfortunate. I think the commander in chief should speak more in terms of language and tone that tries to unify our country, tries to unify the factions. We have some serious issues, no questions, serious disagreements. But as Americans, we need to be able to try to work together and understand each other and work these problems out and not. And not throw around these kinds of threats of, you know, sedition and executions and whatever.

[A]

Yeah. I mean, that's, that's the Republican Party, what you're saying. It sounds like the Republican Party I remember from not that long ago. It feels like a different kind of world now, Mr. Attorney General.

[B]

Well, I don't want to, I don't want to say brand the Republican Party. Entire party are Republicans entirely With, with these particular actions, these particular statements. Our current president, it is certainly the way that this president conducts business. And, you know, we'll have to wait and see what ramifications or repercussions flow from this kind of, this kind of rhetoric and similar kinds of rhetoric in the past. And, you know, maybe at some point, other branches of government will wake up and see that this is an individual that needs to be checked under the Constitution, as allowed by the Constitution.

[A]

Donald Trump needs to be checked, in your view?

[B]

Yes, sir. Yeah.

[A]

Let me get to a matter that's a bit more in your wheelhouse, and that's this prosecution of James Comey, the former FBI director, and you were the attorney general. So I have to ask you about this and your thoughts on, to me, what is a staggering story. This came out yesterday. The Justice Department admitted that not every member of the grand jury in Jim Comey's case saw the final version of the indictment, which, of course, could get the case thrown out. You know, and of course, his lawyers are saying this is selective and vindictive prosecution. But have you ever seen a situation like this? But, I mean, we haven't. I guess we as a country have not seen a situation like this before where the president's going after his political enemies. But for a grand jury not to see a full indictment like this, I.

[B]

Think what we're seeing is a result of the, the hollowing out of the expertise and experience within the Department of Justice. Just I've heard secondhand that, you know, thousands of DOJ prosecutors and investigators have left. They're so demoralized or they've been fired. They've been fired for doing their job like I prosecuting the January 6 rioters. And so it's not surprising that you're going to have investigations and prosecutions moving forward led by individuals that simply just do not have the judgment and experience to do the job. Well, the expectation in our federal court certainly is that when you're representing the United States of America, you are somebody that knows what they're doing. You've got the full weight of the government behind you. And there's a great deal of trust and expectation that what you say is, in fact, lawful, truthful, rather. And we just don't see that today because of the fact that, again, as I said, so many experienced prosecutors, investigators have gone. From my perspective, I think what I understand is the morale of the department is extremely low. And the rep. It's embarrassing. It's embarrassing to the men and women who work at the Department of Justice, who have worked at the Department of Justice to see this kind of conduct. Mistakes happen, no question, where the lawyers and the prosecutors and investigators are not perfect. But in a case of this public interest, in a case of this magnitude, to have this kind of error. And it's. Again, it's. I don't blame the young prosecutor. She simply wasn't up to this challenge. And I really blame the administration for putting her in this position.

[A]

Yeah. I mean, does she have any business. I mean, it sounds as though she has really. As nice as she might be, I have no idea. I don't know her. But it seems as though she has no business being the U.S. attorney and that she was placed there by Donald Trump, by the Justice Department under Pam Bondi, to carry out his bidding. To do his bidding.

[B]

Right. She was facing two huge hurdles. One is lack of experience, and two, a set of circumstances that were really up against. Against the United States government. And so the combination of those factors, it's not surprising that we. That we. That we saw what we saw yesterday.

[A]

Yeah. And full disclosure, you and I did a talk at my alma mater, James Madison University, not that long ago, and it was in front of a very large group of Latino students from that area of the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia. And you and I both witnessed. I mean, what we saw there that morning, I thought was pretty striking. We saw a lot of Latino students who were very worried about what's taking place in this country right now with the ICE raids and so on. And, you know, we heard from students who talked about, you know, their. Their own family members being picked up by ice. And I want to show a little bit of the videos that have been circulating online. I'm sure you've seen some of them. And then let's talk about this issue. You okay? You okay? Yeah. There's the pepper spray. This. This is a gentleman in. In the Chicago area. His family was sprayed with pepper spray by. Apparently the child was hit. That's what these terrorists do to babies. Mommy, you're okay.

[B]

Mama.

[A]

You okay? But. And I was just looking at this report. Mr. Attorney General, this was in the Guardian. ICE raids in Chicago have netted almost zero convicted criminals. More than 97% of the immigrants detained in the Trump administration's Operation Midway blitz in Chicago had no criminal conviction. This is first reported by the Chicago Tribune. The Guardian picked it up. And obviously it stands in contrast with Trump saying he was going to go after criminals and gang bangers and the worst of the worst. What's been your sense of the way this has been carried out in this country? You were the first Latino Attorney General of the United States States.

[B]

I think it's been a disaster. It's been a disaster on several levels. One, the one you just described in that, I think for most Americans, yes, going, going around the country and rounding up dangerous criminals, rapists, you know, murderers, that makes sense. But for the most part, these are individuals that are not dangerous criminals. The only crime they've committed is coming into this country in an undocumented status. But for the most part, many of them have been here for years paying taxes, paying into Social Security. And the way these raids are being conducted without any kind of precision, I think is really painted a picture of a government out of control. And certainly when the conduct of the US Government draws a rebuke from the American Pope about the way immigrants are being treated, right then, you know, there's a serious issue going on with respect to the treatment of individuals. Jim, you spoke about being at jmu, and one of the things I remember is you, you, you spoke about speaking to the students about their value. The fact that, the fact, you know, they're immigrants, they may not been, they may not be American even, but they all, we all have value. And that value has to be respected. And if we're going to enforce the laws, it needs to be done in a way that recognizes that we're all human beings, we all have some, some worth. And quite honestly, that's consistent with, I think, how we all view America, what America should be.

[A]

Yeah, no, I mean, I say that when I talk to young Latino students. You know, be proud of your heritage, be proud of your last name, be proud of the color of your skin. We, where you came from, where your parents came from, and you are a human being, you have every right to be treated humanely in this country. And our Constitution is supposed to, you know, abide by that. I mean, that's one of the reasons why we have the Fifth Amendment and so on of the Constitution to due process. And I remember one of the things that stood out to me from that conversation is that you yourself have felt uncomfortable at times going to the store, wondering, you know, am I going to get picked up?

[B]

Yeah, because I, I worry about the way I dress when I go to someplace like Home Depot. I also, you know, given this, in this, the history or habit of this administration of going after people that are not friends of the administration, the notion that, you know, Al Gonzalez might get picked up, I mean, I'm not a, I'm not known as a big Trump lover. And so that might give an additional reason why someone might take a hard look at and picking someone up, someone like me up.

[A]

But, I mean, but, but I think the, not to skip past this, but I mean, the fact that, that a former Attorney General of the United States has the thought going through his mind. Well, because I look Latino, I have to concern about the way I dress when I go to Home Depot. I mean, that's, that's a hell of a statement.

[B]

Not America, is it? It just isn't. And it's a shame. And again, go back to, you know, Pope Leo just being very, very clear, very, very forceful about, I think his disappointment that he's seeing this in his, not only just in America, but in his home city of Chicago. These kinds of things were happening. And I think that's, that is really, that has really disappointed him and certainly a disappointment to me.

[A]

And sir, I have to ask you about former Vice President Dick Cheney. There were funeral service for him at the National Cathedral today. And we saw George W. Bush was there, Joe Biden was there, of course, Liz Cheney was there and the Cheney family. And you know, one of the things that stood out to people from, and there's Mrs. Cheney as well. But one of the things that stood out to people at the service today, Mr. Attorney General, is we saw Democrats and Republicans. I mean, Donald Trump was not invited, we should know. But Democrats and Republicans were sitting together showing decorum to one another. And, and it's, and it seemed like a snapshot from yesteryear, you know, when this, I mean, yeah, Democrats and Republicans, they, they've gone after each other tooth and nail. No question about it. That's true. But at the end of the day, we were all Americans. We all felt like we were part of the same team. And I'm just wondering, do you have any sense as to how we get that back? Well, I think then your thoughts on Dick Cheney, of course, the Vice president.

[B]

But I think in terms of how we get it back, I think it requires continued effort to reach out to the other side that you can't give up. I was at an event in Austin this weekend, and we're talking about the fact that, that whether will there be retribution by the next Republican administration in terms of firing a bunch of Democratic prosecutor, I mean, Republican prosecutors at the Department of Justice. And I believe being, you know, imposing retribution is the wrong way to go. That's not who we are. We're better than that. And so I still believe that while we may not like it, while it may be difficult, you know, at the end of the day, we are one country. And to be successful, we need to work together. And so we need to continue to find leaders who will continue to reach out and try to find common ground. Now, with respect to Dick Cheney, I think you're seeing Republicans and Democrats there because people recognize that he loved America. And despite what you might feel about the way he treated you or he dealt with people, and he was tough. Even for those of us who worked in the Bush White House, everyone I certainly knew he was motivated by what he thought was best for America always. And I think that's why you see the kind of turnout you see in the National Cathedral is people showing respect for man who deeply loved America.

[A]

Yeah. And he was very frank about his warnings about Donald Trump. And of course, you know, MAGA came after Liz Cheney. And you almost have to wonder, in addition to just the country coming back, you know, the Republican Party, can the Republican Party survive this, Survive Donald Trump?

[B]

Well, I think you're already starting, starting to see cracks in the reach of this president. Looking at the Epstein files, for example, which he appeared to desperately wanted to not have those files released, it remains to be seen whether they ultimately will be. But that certainly was a big step by both the House and the Congress. And of course, we saw the elections, recent elections, and so. And people are unhappy with immigration enforcement. People are worried about our economy because of the tariffs. And so there are a lot of things I think this president should be worried about besides tearing down the East Wing and building a huge ballroom or trying to get as much gold as he can in the Oval Office, I really would like him to concentrate on what's best for the American people. When you're focused on how to make money for yourself and your family and your friends, then you don't have time to think about the American people. And that's what I really worry about.

[A]

And the way he has been, you know, behaving in that category, trying to, he and his family members trying to accumulate as much wealth as possible as soon as they get back into the white. As a former lawman, I mean, maybe former lawman, always a lawman. What, I mean, what goes through your mind? I mean, some of this doesn't look like, I mean, I'll just, this is my personal characterization that doesn't look like it passes the legal muster to me. I mean, it seems something seems fishy with a lot of what he and his family have been up to since he's come back to the White House.

[B]

Well, I agree. I think it would be a violation of a lot of anti corruption, anti bribery laws. But of course, the Department of Justice has been ordered not to enforce those laws going forward. Now, they may worry about what's going to happen in the next administration. My prediction is everyone's going to get pardons before this president leaves. They'll all be pardoned for everything that they ever did in connection, you know, during their time in the White House or in the administration. But the level of corruption, I think, is astounding and historical. And I, I can remember, you know, when I was in the White House telling President Bush he could not keep a box of Cuban cigars because at the time it was unlawful to have Cuban cigars. And so, yeah, I had, I had them returned. So we're in a whole different universe now, unfortunately.

[A]

Yeah. And I tell you, if I, if I get a hold of those cigars, I would, I, you know, I tell you, I don't mind bending the law a little bit when it comes to Cuban cigars, but that's just me. I won't put that on you. But Mr. Attorney General, thank you very much for your time. Really appreciate it. I, we could go on and on, but I'm sure I'm taking up too much of your time. But thank you so much. Great to talk to you, sir.

[B]

It's good to see you again, Jim.

[A]

All right, you too. Thanks a lot. Appreciate it. And you heard the attorney general there say, wow, very interesting interview. We'll, we'll talk about that in the days to come, I'm sure. But you know, one of the things that he mentioned there was the Epstein case, the Epstein files, and how Donald Trump was pretty desperate to not see the release of the Epstein files. And I had a chance to speak earlier today with Julie K. Brown. She's the investigative journalist, one of the best in the country with the Miami Herald. She has been leading the charge when it comes to investigating Jeffrey Epstein over the years and, and everything that he has done in terms of his, his sex trafficking of young underage girls along with Ghislaine Maxwell and I had to reach out to Julie to talk to her about Donald Trump's behavior over the last several days. Yes, he finally signed that bill to release the Epstein files. But Julie still has a lot of questions as to what we're going to see. And here's what she had to say. And joining us now is Miami Herald investigative journalist Julie K. Brown. Julie, it's great to see you. I know you've one of the leading reporters on this Epstein story for many years. And I, I just have to ask you, did you ever think Donald Trump would sign legislation authorizing the release of the Epstein files? What do you make of what we've seen this week?

[C]

Well, I didn't think he would do it unless he was under duress, let's put it that way. I did think that after I saw the victims, the victims, as you know, put out a, a PSA weekend, which was aired during Monday Night Football nationally. And when I saw that, I got chills, as most people did when they saw it. And I thought to myself, this is it. There, there's nobody that should, can vote against releasing these files after this. So I did think that that was going to create, you know, a crack in the whole veneer of let's, you know, let's not release it, you know, for those who were objecting to releasing it.

[A]

Right. Well, and now I'm sure, you know, I mean, the big question is, is how much does the Justice Department release? And we saw the Attorney General Pam Bondi, saying yesterday, we'll follow the law, we'll follow the law. A lot of people took that as code words for trying to find loopholes in the law as to what can be released and what can be held back. What is your, I mean, what's your line of thinking on that and how far the Justice Department can go in blocking some of these files from being released? I mean, I saw Thomas Massie put out a tweet saying, you know, and he's the Republican congressman who's led the charge on this saying, you know, there's, there's only so much they can hold back. They really can't hold back that much according to the law.

[C]

Right. If you read the law, there's actually a lot of information in that law. You take time to read it. There isn't very, I mean, even names that are in their third party names aren't supposed to be redacted. So, you know, the conversations that were made behind the scenes with prosecutors are fair game. There's an awful lot of things that are detailed in this law that's that says that they have to be released. So it's for, in my mind, it's going to be hard for them to find a way around it. But of course, of course, I'm sure they will.

[A]

Yeah. And I guess, you know, you and I haven't spoken in a while and to me what was extraordinary was to see those emails released last week. I know folks have been saying the emails are not the same as what is, you know, contained in the Epstein files. These are emails primarily released by the Epstein estate, I believe. But there's this one email I want to draw your attention to. I've been talking about it on my show non stop. I know other folks have been talking about it as well. It's from April 2011. And it's when Jeffrey Epstein says to Ghislaine Maxwell that Donald Trump is the dog that hasn't barked. And that victim redacted has spent hours at Epstein's house with Donald Trump. This, of course, comes, this came before, this email came before he was a candidate for president, before he was really involved in national politics in a major way. What did you think about that and what do you think about the fact that he's mentioned so many times in these emails that were released?

[C]

Well, first of all, you know, they didn't, as they often fail to do, they didn't properly redact the, these emails. There are places where they redact a name and then other places where you could see the name. And unfortunately that victim's name is in there elsewhere and I won't mention it. I think it's been mentioned, you can look it up. But she has previously said that she had no sexual contact with contact with Trump and in fact that he, anytime she had been in his presence, he had been a gentleman. So I actually think that possibly Epstein was trying to introduce this because he wanted her or was hoping she would say something. I mean, it's hard to know, it's out of context. But you know, the point to me with all these emails is that Trump's name is mentioned more than anybody else, double anybody. Okay. And so it says something. If nothing else, it doesn't imply that he committed any wrongdoing. But if nothing else, it raises questions about his complicity and the complicity of a lot of other high powered and important people who remained friends with him and even conducted business with him and traveled with him and had dinner with him and apparently even shared women with him during a time when we know that, for example, Some of these women were coming out and saying this was a sex trafficking operation. This involved very powerful people, this involved a cover up. So, you know, there was a lot of publicity in 2011 about Epstein and this crime being a much bigger crime than was that was initially believed. So anyone who was associating with him after he pleaded guilty in 2008 should have, you know, really thought about, associated with him. You know, there was a great column by Tina Brown in the New York Times this past weekend and talking about how she was invited to a party at his mansion and she said some words to the effect like, are you crazy? That sounds like a pedophile party. I'm not going to that.

[B]

Wow.

[C]

He certainly knew. And there were people that absolutely knew his reputation. And so it says something about these people, whether it's, you know, their judgment, you know, and, and their morals, you know, they're, they're who, you know, their, their moral fiber.

[A]

Yeah. And it makes me wonder how much Donald Trump is panic stricken over the release of the files themselves. I was speaking with Spencer Kuven, who has represented a number of these survivors, and he said they're, you know, they're probably surveillance tapes, there are probably recordings there. There's all kinds of stuff in the files. It's not just documents and emails and that sort of a thing. And if Donald, I guess the reason why I bring up that April 2011 email is that, okay, maybe that particular victim, maybe there was nothing that was going on between Donald Trump and that particular person, but if he spent hours at the house, there must be, I would have to assume, surveillance footage of Donald Trump going in and out of that house. I don't, I mean, I'm just, this is just me.

[C]

Oh, no. Right, right. And, and also there were, I, I'm pretty sure that were wiretaps too, at some point in these cases. So we just don't know who is going to be implicated here. And just, you know, to be honest with you, if you really look back at my social media, you'll see that when he was running for reelection this past time, there was an awful lot of stuff on social media saying Trump, you know, accusing Trump of being, you know, a pedophile, essentially, and saying that he was Jeffrey Epstein's wingman, blah, blah, blah. And I was saying, look, there's no evidence of that. I've never seen any evidence of that, you know, at that point. And, and then when this all happened with Trump, I have to tell you, with the way that that was handled with Pam Bondi and Cash Patel and the whole, you know, we're gonna release it. And then, then they release nothing. And then they say, forget it. There's nothing to see here.

[A]

Right.

[C]

That's, that's when I thought, there's something we don't know that's in there. There's something.

[A]

There's got to be. So it seems to me there's got to be something. And, and maybe you and I both be proven wrong, but I don't think we will be. And there's also the way he's been behaving lately. I mean, there's the video, we can show this of him calling Catherine Lucy of Bloomberg the other day, Piggy, when she was asking about this. Let's play it and let's talk about it. And I had a very bad relationship for many years, but he also sort of 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 J.P. morgan Chase? Yeah, I mean, I've seen some pretty outlandish Donald Trump behavior over the years that is pretty close to as bad as I've ever seen it. And it's, it's been a pattern. We've seen tweets from him, we've seen public statements from it where he just seems like he's coming unglued. And I'm just wondering, what do you think when you, when you see that kind of stuff? Having investigated this for so long, Julie.

[C]

I just can't explain it other than there, that there's something there, you know, because it doesn't make any sense. It's, it's, it's too over the top, you know, angry and frustrated. And, you know, I, I, you know, I've had people that, you know, I'm not a political reporter. I'm not a White House reporter. So I, you know, I have had a couple of people that are more covering those beats and they have said that this is kind of Trump in some ways because he does never likes to be told that he's wrong. And here he's sort of everything that he's doing is not working here, and he's, everything he's doing is really wrong. You know, he's not getting the results, let's put it this way, that he really wants. So part of the frustration, I'm sure, is that, but you have to wonder if part of the frustration is Also that he's hiding something.

[A]

Yeah. I mean, and, and the way, I mean, the other thing that people haven't really zeroed in on in that video is the way he sort of completely glosses over, not sort of completely glosses over his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. He says, oh, Jeffrey Epstein dictated a couple of memos to himself about me because he saw what a great president I was. But you really ought to look at Bill Clinton and Larry Summers. I mean, again, it just, it looks like somebody whose hand has been caught in the cookie jar. And you as an investigative reporter, I mean, we know when you, if you got a nose for news, you know when something's up and you want to dig.

[C]

When someone acts like this, it, it usually makes me dig in harder because it means that I'm missing something. And I have to say I feel like I've missed something or we've missed something somewhere because I, I just can't help thinking there's something really bad in there that he doesn't want out. And it might not even be about him. It might be about somebody close to him, might be about Melania. I mean, we, I'm sure you've heard the rumors that are out there that somehow we, we heard before that he had, that Epstein had introduced Melania to Trump and now we're hearing maybe they dated each other and you know, you can connect the dots with what's coming next. So maybe it has something to do with that.

[A]

Right. And there's this whole fight between Michael Wolf and Melania and there are, I mean, and you indicated this earlier, there's this whole network of very notable, noteworthy people who have, you know, been involved with Jeffrey Epstein over the years. We just saw Larry Summers, my goodness, just acknowledge in public that what he had done was wrong and he's pulled himself out of the public eye basically in shame over all of this. And I saw you were posting about this too, and I think this is a very important thing too. Senator Wyden from Oregon has been working on this investigation. The Senate Finance Committee apparently issued a report calling for an investigation into whether JP Morgan Chase deliberately underreported more than $1 billion, $1 billion in suspicious transactions by Jeffrey Epstein. And you know, and it talks about the bank's 15 year relationship with, with Epstein and so on. And so, I mean, we focus on Trump because he's the President, United States. Of course we're going to do that, but the tentacles coming out of this is just so far reaching. I don't think the public understands how how far this goes.

[C]

Well, also the blackmail aspect of it here, you don't know, since you don't know how compromised people are here, whether there's some other individual who might possibly be blackmailing Trump, you know, some other individual that's been put into a very cozy Club Med in Texas now, what that person might have on the president. And so all this is really, I mean, it's, it's just coming to. It's like he can't get away from it, you know, because the more he tries to get away from it, the, the more that comes out, it feels like, doesn't it? It feels like to me, the more he tries to evade it, it's still completely baffling to me that from the get go, when he decided we can't let this out, why, instead of closing the freaking case, he. They didn't just announce, look, it's still under open investigation. We're looking at some things and nobody really could, I mean, they could have done some stuff. But when you have an open investigation, that's usually the way that authorities get away with not releasing records because it's an open investigation. So I'm just surprised they didn't take that tact from the very beginning.

[A]

That's right. And now, and now Pam Bondi is saying, well, you know, we're investigating Democrats, and of course, we can see the thought bubble over her head. We're going to use that as the precursor for not, you know, for not releasing any of the Epstein files. And it just looks like blatantly obvious, you know, as to how underhanded that is and how it just looks suspicious, you know, if that's, if that's the approach they're going to take now. You're right. If they had done this months ago, it would have been a completely different situation. And they've come, they've just totally walked into this. But I just wonder, you know, you, you bring up Ghislaine Maxwell, she's another person we haven't really spent a whole line, a lot of time talking about in recent days because of all the focus on the files and this vote and so on, and she's still sitting there waiting for this commutation or pardon. And I wonder what you think, does it make it more likely or less likely that we're going to see that happen now as Trump gets, he sounds like he's getting more and more desperate. So I wonder if maybe we will see something.

[C]

I don't think he's going to do it now, but I do think he's going to do it. I think he's going to pardon her. I think he, the fact that he will not say, he won't partner, you know, why would you not just say, no, I'm not partner. She was convicted of a serious crime. She hurt all these young girls. He's not saying. So I, I do think that he's going to pardon her. But yeah, she, she bears really looking at because she knows everything. She knows everything. And I think she has a lot of emails and a lot of material to back up what she knows as well. She had plenty of material because Epstein was arrested and she went sort of AWOL for a whole year. I was told actually she was in a submarine at one point hiding. And well, remember she was in the oceans business, saving the oceans and she was affiliated with this organization that absolutely had submarines. And so in any event, it was a whole year before they actually arrested her. So she, she had time to gather her goods, so to speak, and to get her papers in order. So.

[A]

And that's the other thing that the emails revealed, is what a liar she was to Todd Blanche and I mean, Todd Blanch, I mean, it seems to me now, and it was, it was pretty evident back when this all went down when he did this interview with her that, you know, she was not going to be straight up about this and they did not want her to be straight up about this. And the interview went accordingly right before she was moved.

[C]

Right. Yeah, it's, it's. If this was happening in any other administration, Obama or anybody, Bush, I mean, there would be impeachment hearings already. I mean, this is kind of. We're in new territory here with what. It's almost like they are testing the bounds of, of American democracy here in our Constitution. And I don't know if we're winning this war or losing it because it seems like we just keep allowing them, you know, to manipulate the doj, to manipulate the FBI, to go after enemies, including colleges and college students who are exercising their free speech rights. I mean, it just feels like we're living in a, you know, a different kind of government time and author authoritarian time. And I never thought, to be honest with you, I never thought I would see something like this in my lifetime.

[A]

Yeah, no, I agree with you 100 and the way they have handled this Epstein case, you're absolutely right, is, is unlike any other administration in the way it would have handled this that we've ever seen in our history. This is, I mean, it is just an obvious departure from the way Our system of justice is supposed to work, and so you have to assume all bets are off, you know, and, and, and you have to just wonder how low will they go? And, you know, I know people say, oh, you shouldn't say the walls are closing in anymore or there are cracks under Trump's feet or anything like that. Sure as heck seems like something's happening.

[C]

Yeah, it does. It feels like there are cracks, and it feels like he's digging into those cracks and kind of making them wider with some of the things he's doing. So it, like when you made the announcement that you're. You're signing this bill, the thing, the screed that he said, it's just, it was just wildly inappropriate. I mean, you have girls that were abused here. I mean, rape.

[B]

Right, right.

[C]

You know, even if you do think it's a political hoax, that that's not really the time to do that. You know, just say, I hope that this somehow brings more information to light. And, you know, he could have done it as a, A thing like, I'm being here. I am the most transparent president. We know that's not true, but his followers probably would have bought it. And so I think, you know, he's just making it worse every day. I mean, some of these women, by the way, voted for him. Some of these.

[A]

That's right. I spoke to one just the other day. I was up at this press conference up on Capitol Hill the other day, and I spoke with Jenna Lisa Jones, I believe is her name, and she was saying, I voted for him. And she couldn't. She was saying, I can't tell you how disappointed and outraged I am over how he's handled her comments.

[C]

She was featured in the series that I wrote in 2018, and her comments were just unbelievably powerful. Really.

[A]

There she is, devastating. She said. She said he was a national embarrassment. And I was standing. I was standing right there, and I saw Marjorie Taylor Greene nodding her head in agreement. Did you ever think you would see that? I didn't.

[C]

I didn't really. But, you know, now that we know what's going on, I kind of. I mean, you have to give it to her that she's understanding this moment.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

You know, trying to be on the right side of history.

[A]

Correct.

[C]

So you have to give her that.

[A]

You know, no question. Well, Julie, excellent work on your part. You know, just keep digging. As you were saying earlier, we just got to keep digging in all of this. But thanks so much for your time. Really appreciate it.

[C]

Thank you for having Me.

[A]

You bet. Take care. That's the great Julie K. Brown. I mean, it's important that we have great journalists in this country like Julie and she, I mean, make no mistake, folks, if you're wondering why we are talking about Jeffrey Epstein and why we're seeing these survivors getting this bill through Congress and even signed by Donald Trump, who never wanted to do that, it's in large part because of Julie's reporting. And, and she has tweeted about her reporting. I think it's maybe her pin tweet is attached to her investigative series. If you ever wanted to go back and look at that. It's, it's really incredible, award winning reporting and I always appreciate her having her on and I thank her for her time. I don't know if you guys saw this, but the White House defended the piggy comments. Let's play this. Caroline Levitt defending Trump calling a reporter piggy. Let's roll it.

[C]

The President mean when he called reporter piggy.

[D]

Look, the President is very frank and honest with everyone in the, in this room. You've all seen it yourself, you've all experienced it yourselves. And I think it's one of the many reasons that the American people reelected this president, because of his frankness. And he calls out fake news when he sees it. He gets frustrated with reporters when you lie about him, when you spread fake news about him and his administration. But he also is the most transparent president in history. And he gives all of you in this room, as you all know, a unprecedented access. You are in the Oval Office almost every day asking the President questions. And so I think the President being frank and open and honest to your faces rather than hiding behind your backs, is frankly, a lot more respectful than what you saw in the last administration where you had a president who lied to your face and then didn't speak to you for weeks and hid upstairs and didn't take your questions. So I think everyone in this room should appreciate the frankness and, and the openness that you get from President Trump on a near daily basis.

[A]

How many times did she rehearse that in the Mirror? That's, that's what I'm wondering. Before she unloaded that pile of bullshit in the White House briefing room. Calling a journalist piggy is not openness and frankness. It is offensive and appalling, and it's conduct unbecoming of a President of the United States. And Caroline Levitt, if she had her head screwed on straight, she would know that. But she doesn't. These days. She's the Gaslighter of. She's the chief gaslighter, the minister of misinformation for Donald Trump. And you know, the reason why. And the questions are not fake news. The questions are about the Epstein files. Questions about the Epstein files. That's. And that's what pissed him off and led him to call Catherine, Lucy Piggy. But you know, folks, I mean, that, that's the job of the press. I mean, look at the story that we're covering today that, that is leading all the news ass. It's at the top of all the, all the news sites I talked about at the beginning of this program. Donald Trump threatening to go after Democratic lawmakers for what he calls seditious behavior, seditious behavior punishable by death. Dude, get a grip. You're coming unglued. And why is he becoming unglued? Why, why is he coming apart at the seams? Because of the Epstein files. Because he just signed a bill. He didn't want to sign that. His hand was forced. It was almost an auto pen that was needed to sign the Epstein files bill. And he, but we have to take it seriously. When the President of the United States responds to Democratic lawmakers who served in the military saying, you know, members of the military should not follow unlawful orders, and he calls that seditious behavior punishable by death, we have to take note of it. We can't just laugh it off. It's serious business. And to me, it is yet another example that the President of the United States is not playing with a full deck. He does not have both oars in the water. His elevator ain't hitting all floors. And it is a question that needs to be dealt with here in the nation's capital. It needs to be dealt with by the Republican Party. Your president, Donald J. Trump, is coming apart at the seams. And every day there's another reminder that he is out to lunch and probably out of his mind. And this is yet another example. Now, the problem in all of this is that this trickles down to the rest of the administration. This insane behavior, un American behavior, trickles down to the rest of the administration. For example, story in the Washington Post just today, the US Coast Guard will no longer classify swastikas and nooses as hate symbols. Have you guys seen this story? Apparently the Department of Homeland Security has already said, oh, no, no, this is not what's happening. This is not what's happening. But this is what the Washington Post story says. The Washington Post story says the U.S. coast Guard will no longer classify the Swastika, an emblem of fascism and white supremacy, inextricably linked to the murder of millions of Jews and that of more than 400,000 U.S. troops died fighting against in World War II, as a hate symbol. Instead, the Coast Guard will classify the swastika as, quote, potentially divisive under its new guidelines, and that also downgrades the definition of nooses and the Confederate flag. Now, folks, I mean, we're hitting a new low, a new low in this administration when our own Coast Guard will no longer classify swastikas as hate symbols. You know, just the other day I was speaking to a group of students over Georgetown and, you know, I asked, I asked them, you know, do you guys, have you guys heard about this Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes thing? You know, Tucker Carlson has Nick Fuentes on. Nick Fuentes is a Nazi. And I, and I asked these students, I said, you guys, as a group, about 20 kids, college students, I said, you guys understand that Nazis are bad, right? And they all nodded their heads. Yes, we all know that Nazis are bad, thank God. And the young people in this country, I say that I sound so old when I say the young, but the young people in this country, college students, young adults, teenagers, Gen Z, whatever comes after Gen Z, that generation, they get it. They get it with this president, and they get it with what's going on inside this administration. And it is absolutely appalling and un American that any effort would ever be made to water down the significance of the swastika inside the American government. This government, this government which sent an entire generation of Americans to storm the beaches of Normandy, to liberate the world from. From the darkness of Nazis, that this same government would ever think, would ever think to downgrade the significance of Nazis as potentially divisive is as disgusting as it comes. And to me, there are a lot of people today saying, well, Donald Trump going after members of Congress and saying sedition and punishable by death. This means he should be thrown out of office. This means he should, he should be impeached and convicted. I will go one step further. If the American government will somehow downgrade the significance of the swastika, that too should be an impeachable defense. And whoever the head of the Coast Guard is should be hauled in front of Congress. And Kristi Noem should have her ass hauled in front of Congress. Any Department of Homeland Security who has any authority over this should have their ass hauled in front of Congress. To ask, what in the world are you doing talking about downgrading the significance of the swastika and saying that it's potentially divisive. And I want to tell you, because this Nazi shit has come up over and over again with this new administration, this new Trump 2.0. And you need to know if you are a Nazi working in this government and if you are a Nazi sycophant who supports this government, just know there are more of us than there are of you. There are more of us than there are of you. And this country will never, ever be run by Nazis. And you want to know who the pigs are? You want to get down in, in the, in the mud and talk about who the pigs are? The pigs are the Nazis. And anybody who supports Nazism, anybody who would give aid and comfort to Nazism, you are a pig because Nazis are pigs. And so let that be the conversation about piggies and pigs. Any administration that would ever downgrade the significance and say it's potentially divisive to have a swastika visible on a Coast Guard ship, their ass should be fired. And anybody inside this administration who authorized this should have their ass hauled in front of a committee to answer to Congress immediately. That, to me, is an impeachable offense. I want to thank the Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez, for coming on today. Thank Julie K. Brown still reporting from Washington. I'm Jim Acosta. Have a good evening. I'll see you next time. Sam.