Lawrence: One honest thing Trump said about Epstein’s survivors is ‘I haven’t thought about it’

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell

Episode: "One honest thing Trump said about Epstein’s survivors is ‘I haven’t thought about it’"

Date: September 10, 2025
Host: Lawrence O’Donnell

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on Donald Trump’s recent response to the unsealed Jeffrey Epstein "birthday book" and allegations tied to Epstein’s abuse survivors. Lawrence O'Donnell examines Trump’s evasive statements about both the authenticity of a letter in Epstein’s book (allegedly signed by Trump) and his insensitivity to the plight of Epstein’s victims. The episode further discusses the role financial institutions—specifically JP Morgan—played in enabling Epstein, the ongoing legal and legislative response, and the implications for justice and political accountability. Key guests include New York Times investigative journalist David Enrich, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, and Harvard economist Jason Furman.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump’s Response to Epstein Birthday Book Letter

• Trump in DC Restaurant: Trump faced public outrage while dining out in DC, highlighting his fraught relationship with the city. ([01:20])
• Denial of Signature and Language: Trump denied that the signature on Epstein’s birthday book was his, also claiming, "That’s not my language," despite evidence contradicting him.
  O’Donnell’s analysis: "Every other word in the Donald signed birthday message…is in the vocabulary of the average first grader."
• Admitted Indifference to Victims: Trump’s "I haven’t even thought about that" statement regarding meeting with Epstein’s survivors is called out as exceedingly honest about his lack of empathy for the victims. ([04:50])

Notable Quote:

"That may be the one honest thing Donald Trump has said about Jeffrey Epstein and his surv survivors. Of course he hasn't thought about them."
—Lawrence O’Donnell ([05:05])

2. Dehumanization of Victims

• O’Donnell draws a direct line between Trump’s historic rhetoric (dehumanizing migrants, calling opponents ‘vermin’) and his attitude toward Epstein’s victims.
• Plays direct survivor pleas outside the Capitol, highlighting Trump's dismissiveness and labelling of victims as a "hoax."
  Survivor's statement: "We are the Americans that you promised to protect, and we need your help…make us feel like our voices are finally being heard." ([07:20])
• Survivor Liz Stein discusses trauma and the relief that documents are finally being released:

  "It's incredibly traumatizing for us to have this ripped open again…we want to see justice." ([12:42])

3. The "Hoax" Denial & Survivor Testimony

• Trump referred to victim statements as a "hoax," increasing the survivors' need for recognition and justice.
• Survivor hurt by Trump’s dismissal:

  "There is no hoax. The abuse is real. I voted for Trump and for him to say what he’s saying is beyond me because I put my hope in him. None of us are up there accusing him of anything … who are you hiding for then?" ([08:20])

4. Authenticity & Legal Ramifications of Documents

• Trump’s signature in Epstein’s book was challenged but visually matches his other known signatures; O’Donnell: "You're allowed to believe your eyes when you look at those signatures." ([09:50])
• The Epstein estate is producing more documents to Congress—ongoing, not a "dead issue" as claimed by Trump.

5. JP Morgan’s Enabling of Epstein

• New Reporting:
  NYT article details JP Morgan’s facilitation of Epstein’s crimes, including overlooked suspicious cash withdrawals and failure to file timely suspicious activity reports. ([13:55])
• Massive Settlements, Little Consequence:
  $290 million paid to victims, $75 million to the US Virgin Islands—both "a rounding error" in JP Morgan’s profits.
• Bank Culture:
  Reporter David Enrich: "It takes an entire bank…JP Morgan wanted to keep doing business with Epstein despite a million red flags…because he was profitable." ([18:00])

6. Legal and Institutional Accountability

• O’Donnell and Sen. Whitehouse analyze the lack of criminal accountability for banks/officials, reliance on civil proceedings, and weak federal oversight.
• Whitehouse discusses the bank’s failure to file Suspicious Activity Reports:

  "If you wanted a clue…you might look at the heading of the form that you filed that said suspicious activity reports." ([26:44])

7. Supreme Court’s ‘Shadow Docket’ and Immigration

• Segment covers recent Supreme Court decisions expanding federal agents' power to detain people “who look like” undocumented immigrants.

• Justice Sotomayor’s dissent is quoted, warning of eroded civil rights:

  "We should not have to live in a country where the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish and appears to work a low-wage job…" ([32:50])

• Whitehouse’s critique: The conservative majority’s use of shadow decisions bypasses proper legal process and clarity, undermining legal precedent and lower courts. ([33:49])

8. Trump Tariffs and Economic Fallout

• Supreme Court is reviewing the legality of Trump-era tariffs—if upheld as unconstitutional, the Treasury may owe up to $1 trillion in refunds.
• Impact of tariffs:
  • Hurt US carmakers most, cause job and profit loss, and contribute to inflation ([41:00])
  • Harvard’s Jason Furman: "The tariffs shouldn't have been collected in the first place…It’s also common sense. The idea that you could raise taxes on every single American without Congress…is just not something I ever thought a president was allowed to do." ([42:04])
  • Tariffs and immigration restrictions are cited as dual drags on growth and employment.

---

Memorable Moments & Notable Quotes

• O’Donnell on Trump’s signature denial:

  "It's not my signature and it's not the way I speak. Even though it looks exactly like his signature and his limited vocabulary does actually include every word in the letter..." ([23:07])

• On financial accountability:

  "No regulator took action against JP Morgan. No executives lost their jobs. Dimon remains one of the most powerful bankers in the world." ([14:30])

• Justice Sotomayor’s dissent ([32:50 – 33:30]):

  "We should not have to live in a country where the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish and appears to work a low wage job… I dissent."

• Sen. Whitehouse on the shadow docket:

  "One of the conventions at the Supreme Court is that you say, 'I respectfully dissent.' Sotomayor left out the respectfully…that is a signal to her colleagues." ([33:49])

---

Important Timestamps

• Trump’s restaurant incident, Epstein book denial: [01:20 – 04:44]
• Trump’s indifference on survivors, "I haven't thought about that": [04:50]
• Survivors’ public plea and Trump’s dismissal as 'hoax': [07:20 – 08:20]
• NYT’s David Enrich on JP Morgan enabling Epstein: [13:55 – 20:10]
• Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse on accountability and dark money: [25:13 – 28:07]
• Justice Sotomayor’s dissent on immigration ruling: [29:35 – 33:30]
• Whitehouse on the 'shadow docket': [33:49 – 36:45]
• Trump tariffs and economic impacts: [38:34 – 45:22]

---

Episode Tone and Takeaways

O’Donnell’s tone is critical, evidence-driven, and at times biting, especially regarding Trump’s evasions, the institutional failures spanning Wall Street to the White House, and the Supreme Court’s partisan lean. The discussion threads through themes of dehumanization, elite impunity, and the need for accountability—emphasized in both survivor voices and expert testimony.

---

Summary for New Listeners

Lawrence O’Donnell uses a blend of fact-checking, survivor testimony, and expert interviews to connect Trump’s dismissive language, the broader system that enabled Epstein’s crimes, and contemporary political dangers: institutional corruption, lack of accountability among the powerful, and ongoing threats to civil rights. The episode is a sharp critique of the powerful—whether in government, finance, or the courts—who evade responsibility, with a recurring call for justice and vigilant citizenship.

Transcript

[A]

Did you know that parents rank financial literacy as the number one most difficult life skill to teach? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app for families. With Greenlight, you can set up chores, automate allowance and keep an eye on your kids spending with real time notifications, kids learn to earn, save and spend wisely. And parents can rest easy knowing their kids are learning about money with guardrails in place. Sign up for Greenlight [e-mail] podcast.

[B]

Imagine relying on a dozen different software programs to run your business, none of which are connected, and each one more.

[A]

Expensive and more complicated than the last.

[C]

It can be pretty stressful.

[B]

Now imagine Odoo. Odoo has all the programs you'll ever need and are all connected on one platform. Doesn't Odoo sound amazing? Let Odoo harmonize your business with simple, efficient software that can handle everything for.

[D]

A fraction of the price.

[B]

Sign up [e-mail] that's o-o o.com the.

[A]

Last Word with Lawrence O' Donnell starts right now. Hey, Lawrence.

[B]

Hey, Jen. So Donald Trump went out to a restaurant in Washington, D.C. tonight, as if that's a big deal for presidents. President Obama used to do it with some regularity and was completely normal part of the schedule when you were working there, wasn't it?

[E]

Mm.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

Also, he went to a fancyish restaurant, not a crime, but went to one that was very close to the White House. So it wasn't like he was venturing out into the city of De. To be clear, it was like you could throw a rock from the White House to where he went, and still.

[B]

He picked the restaurant where people started yelling at him that he is the Hitler of our time. Literally what they were yelling at him inside the restaurant. People who were in the restaurant, apparently at tables in there. So, you know, Donald Trump does have a different experience when he goes out to Washington restaurants.

[A]

Yeah, well, he'd be hard. I mean, there's a lot of Ross and Kin restaurants where that might be what people say. So I don't know. It's not exactly a city that's embraced his presence here, so that may be a challenge for him and his dining out in the city.

[B]

Well, we're going to cover a little bit more of what he had to say going into that restaurant tonight.

[A]

All right, look forward to it.

[B]

Thanks, Jen.

[D]

Thank you.

[A]

Bye, Lawrence.

[B]

Well, it took him more than 24 hours, but the breaking and totally unsurprising news of the night is that Donald Trump on his way into that restaurant tonight, finally said the words it's not my signature. And in the same sentence, Donald Trump threw in a lie, quote, it's not the way I speak. And anybody that's covered me for a long time knows that's not my language. It's not my signature and it's not the way I speak. And anybody that's covered me for a long time know that's not my language. Donald Trump didn't say which words in the Epstein birthday book letter with his signature are not his language. The night the Wall Street Journal first published the letter on July 17, I was among those who at first thought enigma was an unlikely word for Donald Trump to use. But then we immediately, in about a 4 second Google search, found video of Donald Trump correctly using the word enigma at one of his rallies in his first campaign for president. Carson's an enigma to me. I didn't say it. Every other word in the Donald signed birthday message to Jeffrey Epstein is in the vocabulary of the average first grader in America. Donald tells Jeffrey, in that message, we have certain things in common. Jeffrey and Donald says, happy birthday and may every day be another wonderful secret. What do you mean that's not my language? That's everyone's language. And so in the very same sentence, when Donald Trump said tonight that's not my signature, he lied and said, that's not my language. Of course it's your language. It's everyone's language. Even enigma is your language, Donald. Donald Trump was then asked a question to which he convincingly said, I haven't even thought about it.

[A]

So will you meet with the Epstein victims? Do you plan to meet with.

[B]

I don't know about. Nobody suggested that.

[A]

So would you be open to doing that?

[B]

Certainly. I don't like that whole situation with respect to anybody being abused or hurt, but I haven't, I haven't even thought about that. Of course he hasn't even thought about that. That may be the one honest thing Donald Trump has said about Jeffrey Epstein and his surv survivors. Of course he hasn't thought about them. Andrew Weissman made the wise point last night on this program that Donald Trump has done everything he can possibly do to dehumanize people. He did it in his first campaign speech of his career as a presidential candidate, dehumanizing people crossing the southern border, desperate to find a better life in this country, calling them rapists and criminals. He then went on to use Adolf Hitler's language to describe people in this country, including people who vote for Democratic candidates. He has called us vermin. That is Hitler's word. Donald Trump tries to dehumanize anyone who doesn't vote for him. Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell dehumanized their victims. Donald Trump was very close friends with Jeffrey Epstein, according to Jeffrey Epstein, for 10 years. Jeffrey Epstein said, I was Donald's closest friend for 10 years. Ghislaine Maxwell, the dehumanizer of those women, some of whom she met when they were little girls, completely ignores the pain of the girls she chose to victimize because she dehumanized them. She didn't think of them as people. The rich heiress who was suddenly penniless when her rich father lost all of his money and then desperately clung to Jeffrey Epstein's money, dehumanized those girls because she believed they were born bene station in life and they would always be beneath her. And so tonight, Donald Trump said, I haven't even thought about that. And that's very believable coming from Donald Trump. That's what Donald Trump said tonight about meeting with Epstein survivors. And Donald Trump said, you just heard him say. Nobody suggested that. Those were his words. Nobody suggested that. No. Nobody working for Donald Trump. Nobody except the Epstein survivors themselves, who Donald Trump dehumanizes to the point of ignoring what they said directly to him.

[A]

President Trump, you have so much influence.

[F]

And power in this situation.

[A]

Please use that influence and power to.

[F]

Help us, because we need it now.

[A]

We are the Americans that you promised to protect, and we need your help. Please, President Trump, pass this bill and help us. Make us feel like our voices are finally being heard. I cordially invite you to the Capitol to meet me in person so you can understand. This is not a hoax. We are real human beings. This is real trauma.

[B]

Donald Trump called them a hoax. While the Epstein survivors outside the Capitol last night were speaking, Donald Trump called them a hoax. He dehumanized them while they were speaking. He said in clear Trumpian language, they're not human beings to me. No one should listen to them. They're a hoax. When the survivors were told what Donald Trump said about them outside the Capitol, some of them responded.

[A]

We're here in person. To say that it's a hoax is just not. Please humanize us. I would like Donald J. Trump and every person in America and around the world to humanize us, to see us for who we are and to hear us for what we have to say. There is no hoax. The abuse was real. I voted for Trump and for him to say what he's saying is beyond me because I put my hope in him. And he's supposed to protect us. None of us are up there accusing him of anything. There is no one that is accusing him of any wrongdoing. So for the fact that he is saying those things and saying it's a hoax, who are you hiding for then? Because if it's not you, then who is it? And that scares me. Who is it?

[B]

Earlier today, NBC's Garrett Hake had a brief phone call with Donald Trump in which Donald Trump called the Epstein birthday book and the letter with his name on it, quote, a dead issue. And Donald Trump refused to comment on it, saying, quote, I don't comment on something that's a dead issue. Garrett Hake reported that at 8:40am and 11 hours later, Donald Trump decided to comment on the debt issue, which obviously is not a debt issue. And this time, Donald Trump said, it's not my signature. Well, it looks like his signature. It looks exactly like his signature that I showed you last night on a note that Donald Trump sent to me January of 2016. And it looks like the one name Donald signature that appears on other letters he sent to other people that have been made public. So we all have a perfect right to guess or conclude that that is Donald Trump's signature on that letter. You're allowed to believe your eyes when you look at those signatures. It was the estate of Jeffrey Epstein that handed over the Epstein birthday book in response to a congressional subpoena, and the estate plans to produce additional documents soon. Daniel Weiner, an attorney for the Epstein estate, told NBC News, quote, as agreed with the House Oversight Committee, the estate is making a rolling production of documents responsive to the committee's subpoena. We hope to be producing additional documents soon. And so it's not a dead issue. More is coming, much more. And Donald Trump will pretend at some point, again that it's a dead issue. But then, because in the tiny contours of his brain, his insistence that it's a dead issue lives right beside his desperate need to comment on everything. And so he will be unable to refrain from commenting on the additional documents as they come out. Republican Congressman Thomas Massie, who is leading an effort in the House of Representatives with Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna to force the release of the Epstein files from the Justice Department, said this today. I'm not a forensic expert, but it looks like his signature. The White House has denied that. They've said that it's not his. The whole thing is a hoax.

[C]

I mean, are they hurting their own case here?

[B]

It's a hoax. What 1020 years in the making. If the letter is a hoax, it seems like so Donald Trump insults your intelligence by wanting you to believe that 22 years ago, a page was inserted in a bound volume for Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday party with what appears to be Donald Trump's signature on it. While Donald Trump was a close friend of Jeffrey Epstein's, and that that's a fake, Donald Trump wants you to believe he was the only close friend of Jeffrey Epstein's who did not contribute to the Epstein birthday book. Today, Epstein survivor Liz Stein said this.

[F]

Well, I think it's important for people to understand that the birthday book was produced by the Epstein estate. So it's coming right from the source. And I think that we should all take a close look at some of the messages in there. They were extremely familiar and intimate. And I think that we're looking at a pattern of behavior with Epstein and some of his friends that has been going on for decades in this birthday book is just more proof of that. This is incredibly traumatizing for us to have this ripped open again and for us to have to revisit this and see this on the news and in. In popular culture every day everywhere we go. But on the flip side of that, I think that we're all encouraged that the estate is finally turning over some documents, because more than our discomfort in reliving this trauma, we want to see justice. And we are willing as survivors of this crime to do whatever we have to that without putting ourselves in danger to really get to the bottom of this. And so I think that we are encouraged by anything new that's coming out.

[B]

The New York Times has made a giant new contribution to what we know about how Jeffrey Epstein did it. Under the headline How JP Morgan Enabled the Crimes of Jeffrey Epstein, reported by David Enrich, Matthew Goldstein, and Jessica Silver Greenberg, the Times reports. At Epstein's behest, JP Morgan set up accounts into which he routinely transferred huge sums for young women who turned out to be victims of his sex trafficking operations. Bank officials for more than a decade were anxious about Epstein's prolific wire transfers and cash withdrawals. JP Morgan ultimately processed more than $1 billion in such transactions for him and warned senior management about his suspicious activities. But on at least four occasions over five years, the bank's leaders overrode those objections and continued to serve Epstein. In 2003, Epstein withdrew more than $175,000 in cash from his JP Morgan accounts, a huge haul even for someone with millions at the bank. Outside investigators later found that Epstein paid almost that exact amount to Women that year. J.P. morgan recognized that those withdrawals needed to be reported to federal regulators that monitor large cash transactions. But the bank failed to treat those withdrawals as an early warning system for itself. Indeed, JP Morgan's anti money laundering specialists subsequently acknowledged that such withdrawals should have alerted the bank to the possibility that Epstein was committing crimes. The current head of JP Morgan, Jamie Dimon, testified under oath that he had nothing to do with the decision to continue doing business with Jeffrey Epstein. The Times reports The fallout for JP Morgan has been limited. In 2023, it paid $290 million to settle a lawsuit brought by roughly 200 of Epstein's victims and an additional $75 million to resolve related litigation brought by the US Virgin Islands, where many of Epstein's crimes took place. The payments were a rounding error for a company that raked in more than $50 billion in profits that year. The bank didn't admit wrongdoing and is trying to force its insurers to cover some of the litigation costs. No regulator took action against J.P. morgan. No executives lost their jobs. Dimon remains one of the most powerful bankers in the world. Perhaps it's time for one of the reporters in the financial news media who get to question Jamie Dimon occasionally to ask him if he would meet with the Epstein survivors and see if Jamie Dimon has a better answer than. I haven't even thought about that. Leading off our discussion tonight is David Enrich, Deputy Investigations editor at the New York Times. He is the author of the book Murder the Fear, the First Amendment and A Secret Campaign to Protect. David, thank you very much for joining us tonight. And talk about a campaign to protect the powerful. This astonishing piece of investigative journalism you've turned in is just a sad thing to read from start to finish, including the JP Morgan executives. We have one in your reporting, Jess Staley, who actually was the big Epstein supporter at JP Morgan, and he's the one who's identified as having had sex with one of the victims at the time. Now, survivors of the Epstein operation.

[C]

Yeah, and I think we know it's at least one. I think that it's possible there are more instances of this that we are not aware of and we're not able to confirm. But it is clear that within the bank this was, you know, there's the saying it takes a village and in this case it takes an entire bank. And yes, Jess Staley, this one very high ranking executive who is basically the number two at the bank, was certainly the point person who is the most vocal advocate for maintaining business relationships with Jeffrey Epstein. But this was an institutional failure and an institutional decision on JP Morgan's part. They wanted to keep doing business with Epstein despite a million red flags were flapping in the wind because he made a lot of money for the bank. He was a lucrative client. He introduced the bank to other lucrative clients, and he was just an important fixer within the bank. And that led JP Morgan to repeatedly decide to keep doing business with him because he was profitable. Even though there were really clear warning signs that a lot of people up and down the food chain inside the bank were warning, were very clear indications that that are associated with people who are committing crimes. And even though they knew that Epstein had pleaded guilty to crimes and was currently under federal investigation for human trafficking, they opted over and over to continue this relationship.

[B]

This is also a story about how the law applies differently the richer you are, and without regard to what administration we're talking about. And this is when I discovered in your reporting that the cash transactions were not reported at the time the way the law requires them to be. They were reported by JP Morgan. Years later, after everything was exposed on Jeffrey Epstein, they decided, oh, I guess we better file all those forms we were supposed to file every time he took out $10,000, which is the federal law on this. If you remove close to $10,000 in a cash withdrawal, there's supposed to be an immediate filing by the bank that goes to the federal government so they can track that. They did all of those long after the fact.

[C]

Yeah. And they made a very belated cleanup attempt at a cleanup anyway, after Epstein had been arrested and died in prison, they tried to cover their behinds from a legal perspective. And as we note in the piece that may have provided JP Morgan with some legal protection, it did absolutely nothing to identify his crimes as they were being committed and to potentially stop those crimes. And that's, to me, the great tragedy of this story, which is that there were a great many people at this bank, which was the country's largest and one of the most prestigious in the world, where if they had raised a stink about this, if they had reported stuff in a timely fashion to the federal government, there's a chance that some of these crimes would have been stopped before they had occurred. And I think that there are still a lot of unanswered questions about all the various financial institutions and wealthy individuals who contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's crime spree. But it's clear to me that JP Morgan has a large amount of responsibility here because they saw a lot of what was happening in real time and they made a conscious decision not to do anything about it.

[B]

David Enrich, thank you very much for your reporting. Thank you for joining us tonight. I'm going to take up some of your points with some Senator Sheldon Whitehouse in the next segment.

[C]

Thank you.

[B]

Thank you. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse will join us next.

[A]

Did you know 39% of teen drivers admit to texting while driving? Even scarier, those who text are more likely to speed and run red lights. Shockingly, 94% know it's dangerous, but do it anyway. As a parent, you can't always be in the car, but you can stay connected to their safety With Greenlight Infinity's driving reports. Monitor their driving habits, see if they're using their phone, speeding and more. These reports provide real data for meaningful conversations about safety. Plus, with weekly updates, you can track their progress over time, help keep your teens safe. Sign up for greenlight [e-mail] podcast AI.

[B]

Had the time of my life. AI never failed cuz we're the four.

[A]

From from building timelines to assigning the right people and even spotting risks across dozens of projects, Monday Sidekick knows your business, thinks ahead and takes action. One click on the star and consider it done.

[D]

And I owe it all to you.

[A]

Try Monday Sidekick AI you'll love to use on Monday.com big moments or small moments, they all deserve great style. At Maurices, we're here to help you show up feeling your best. No matter what's on your calendar. Whether it's a date night, a special event or just another Tuesday, our over 800 stylists are here to help. From tried and true denim to head turning looks, we've got style that fits your life and your budget. Visit your local Maurices to find fashion fit for you, with a little help from us.

[B]

Tonight, Donald Trump offered his first on the record explanation of the Epstein birthday book, saying, quote, it's not my signature and it's not the way I speak. It's not my signature and it's not the way I speak. And anybody that's covered me for a long time know that's not my language. Even though it looks exactly like his signature and his limited vocabulary does actually include every word in the letter with the Donald signature on it in Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday book. What Donald Trump decided to drop from his defense tonight is what he said when the letter was first reported back in July and reported that it included that drawing that we've all seen and at that time, he said, I don't draw pictures. And of course, immediately several drawings of Donald Trump, drawings by Donald Trump that had been auctioned off publicly were immediately revealed and published back then in July. So he's given up on that particular defense. Joining us now is former federal prosecutor Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode island, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senate Finance Committee and the Budget Committee. He's the top ranking Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Senator, thank you very much for joining us tonight. And I would like you with your former federal prosecutor hat to begin this discussion. And picking up where we just left it with David Enrich, which is about the under oath testimony that his reporting refers to. It's all in civil cases. It's all in lawsuits brought against JP Morgan. None of it is testimony under oath in a courtroom in a criminal case. And in general, what happens if someone commits perjury in a civil lawsuit? How often or how likely is that to come to the attention of federal prosecutors?

[D]

Well, it would depend on, I mean, the traditional standard for dealing with that is how material was it? Was it just an incidental lie of no moment? But if it was material, that counts. If it had an effect in the outcome of the trial, that would make a big difference. And what was the intent behind it? Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it a misreading? Or did it seem like it was a deliberate lie? If you look at those things and there's every reason to enforce it, that would often be done in the form of filing in the civil court for a form of contempt or another remedy that somebody lied and it happened right in the court and the judge needs to do something about it because I, the other person was harmed by it. Senator, the judge has a big role.

[B]

Here as a student of dark money, as you've all taught us, about how it has flowed through the United States Supreme Court and influenced the judges there. This New York Times reporting about the Dark Epstein money moving through JP Morgan, massive amounts of cash being transferred to these people who young girls who is victimizing at the time. And JP Morgan allowing it all to happen until the very last minute until he's actually in handcuffs is one of those stories that sounds like something you could have mapped out for us if you'd actually, if you'd had the resources that Times had on this.

[D]

Yeah. With the added feature here that those federal reports that the bank filed when it troubled to file them are actually called suspicious activity reports. That's what SARS the terms stands for. So if you wanted a clue as a bank whether this was suspicious activity. You might look at the heading of the form that you filed that said suspicious activity reports. And, you know, you talked about how there had been the big settlement with the victims and there was a settlement with the Virgin Islands. I don't recall any settlement with the United States. And so we'll see where that goes. But, but clearly, you know, this is the same material that Chairman Wyden and the Finance Committee revealed a while ago. And so there's been plenty of opportunity for this to be investigated by the FBI. So while Attorney General Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel were doing all this big talk about getting to the absolute bottom of everything, here was this trove of information right in front of them and no visible effort to do the slightest bit of investigation. And again, these things are called suspicious activity reports, for Pete's sake.

[B]

Senator Whitehouse, we have to squeeze in a commercial break, if you can stay with us. I want to get your reaction to the latest doings of the United States Supreme Court. We'll be right back after this break. No matter how uninspiring presidential candidates might be, the reason for voting for president is all. There it is, the United States Supreme Court. If you didn't bother to vote in 1988 because Michael Dukakis wasn't eloquent enough, you helped deliver George H.W. bush to the White House, which means you helped put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. If you didn't vote for al Gore in 2000 because he was too boring, you helped give the presidency to George W. Bush, who put Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court, who then became the first justice in our lifetimes to take a constitutional right away in his ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, suddenly making abortion illegal in much of the country. When Democratic presidential candidates lose, pundits always blame the candidates for failing to reach voters who presumably would have voted for them if the candidates had just found some magic words that the pundit suddenly knows only after the election. Today, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Silomayor put the responsibility for election outcomes exactly where it belongs on the voters.

[E]

Read the decisions, and not just my dissents, but the other side, too. Become informed citizens and not just reactive because people will say things that are simply not there or say things and misconstrue them. Read them yourself. Educate yourself. As Americans, the price of we pay is whatever is happening today, as I indicated, it's going to affect a lot of people, but it affects your future and it affects the conduct of leaders in the future, because what we permit today is not going to be duplicated exactly tomorrow. It's going to be something different. It'll be a different group of people, it'll be a different situation. But once we've approved it, it sets a precedent that can be in your judgment, because in the end, you're the people affected.

[B]

Right?

[E]

Really bad. And that's what's at risk, is in each time we change precedent, we are changing the contours of a right that people thought they had. And once you take that away, think of how much more is at risk later, not just in this situation.

[B]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor's latest dissent is in a Supreme Court decision that allows Donald Trump's masked bands of federal agents from a variety of federal agencies to grab people off the street because they look like, according to the agents, they might be undocumented immigrants. There was a time in this country when the overwhelming majority of recent immigrants looked like me, having made it across the ocean, fleeing famine and desperate poverty in Ireland. There are still recent immigrants in this country from Ireland, some of them undocumented, working in various places around the country. But ICE agents are not pulling them out of their cars and throwing them to the ground and handcuffing them and dragging them away. But they are doing that to people in Los Angeles and other parts of this country who are native born American citizens, some of whom have Spanish names in a city that has a Spanish name, Los Angeles, a city that is in a place that used to be Mexico. And after those American citizens who've been snatched by those masked agents are finally able to prove that they are native born citizens, Donald Trump's masked agents will let them go. And that has been unconstitutional since the Bill of Rights was passed by Congress as the first 10amendments to the Constitution in 1791. Justice Sotomayor's dissent to that Supreme Court decision, supported by all six Republican members of the court, says the Fourth Amendment protects every individual's constitutional right to be, quote, free from arbitrary interference by law officers, end quote. After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little. Instead of allowing the district court to consider these troubling allegations in the normal course, a majority of this court decides to take the once extraordinary step of staying the district court's order. That decision is yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket. We should not have to live in a country where the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish and appears to work a low wage job rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost. I dissent. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is back with us. Senator, your reaction to Justice Sotomayor's dissent?

[D]

Well, this is one of a series of decisions on they called it the emergency docket in the case, but it's commonly referred to as the shadow docket. And these are some very weird decisions that are done before there's proper briefing and argument that are often done anonymously by the court. And they're provoking these very hot, pointed dissents from Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan. One of the conventions that the Supreme Court is that you say, I respectfully dissent. Sotomayor left out the respectfully in that sentence. That is a signal to her colleagues. But for all of us, what you're looking at is something that turns Marbury versus Madison, that seminal Supreme Court decision on its head, Marbury v. Madison, says that it's the job of the Supreme Court to say what the law is in these shadow docket decisions. The court does not say what the law is. It just picks a winner without describing what it's saying. That does a real disservice to the courts below that have to try to figure out how to deduce what it meant. And courts are getting pretty visibly frustrated with this, making references to Calvin Ball and stuff like that with the Supreme Court just making up the rules as it goes. The legitimate reason to do this stuff is to get in there and minimize pre decision harm. And these shadow docket decisions go the other way. They make as much pre decision harm as possible. Many of them are firings and they let the firing go forward. So on one side you've got somebody has to clear up their office, lose their job, maybe never get bought back again, have to look for pay in the meantime. On the other hand, you have the right of the President to fire that person, which before the decision is overturned is actually not a legal right. So it has no measurable value at all. And yet they go with that with an obvious awareness that they are going to overrule the decision, but they won't say so. So everything about it is irritating to lower court judges, irritating to the three Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson who are the dissenters in all of this. It's a really frustrating moment because it's the court abusing a power that really shouldn't even have really, except in rare circumstances. And it's just sloshed out into all of these things and huge things are now happening. In effect, that search and seizure has been at least preliminarily stood on its head in Los Angeles.

[B]

If you're Latino, it is a vivid and painful reminder of the importance of presidential elections and voter participation. Senator Sheldon, WHITE House and also about.

[D]

Understanding what went on behind this, that there was in fact a dark money capture of this court and it is being told what to do by those same special interests through a flotilla of phony front groups.

[B]

And we have you to thank for that understanding. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, thank you very much for joining us tonight. Thank you. Coming up, the Trump treasury secretary is worried that he might have to pay back all of the unconstitutional and illegal Trump tariffs that he has collected in the treasury from American companies. He might have to pay those companies back. That's next.

[A]

Did you know 39% of teen drivers admit to texting while driving. Even scarier, those who text are more likely to speed and run red lights. Shockingly, 94% know it's dangerous, but do it anyway. As a parent, you can't always be in the car, but you can stay connected to their safety with Greenlight Infinity's driving reports. Monitor their driving habits, see if they're using their phone, speeding and more. These reports provide real data for meaningful conversations about safety. Plus, with weekly updates, you can track their progress over time, help keep your teen safe. Sign up for Greenlight [e-mail] podcast. Monday Sidekick the AI agent that knows.

[C]

You and your business, thinks ahead and takes action. Don't get anything seriously.

[A]

Monday Sidekick AI AI you'll love to use. Start a free trial today on Monday.com big moments or small moments? They all deserve great style. Our over 800 stylists are here to help you look and feel your best. Visit your local Maurices to find fashion fit for you. With a little help from us.

[B]

The United States treasury might have to refund as much as a trillion dollars in illegally collected Trump tariffs to America American companies if the United States Supreme Court agrees with the two other federal courts that have ruled that the Trump tariffs are unconstitutional and illegal. Today, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in Donald Trump's appeal of the lower court rulings against him on tariffs. On Sunday, the Treasury secretary said the treasury would comply with the final ruling by the Supreme Court in the case.

[D]

So we would have to give a refund on about half the tariffs, which would be terrible for the Treasury.

[A]

And you're prepared to give those refunds?

[D]

Well, I mean, there's no be prepared. If the court says it. We'd have to do it.

[B]

So there's the Trump Treasury Secretary predicting that Donald Trump would obey a Supreme Court ruling against his tariffs, a statement that actually, of course, has no predictive value whatsoever as to what Donald Trump might actually do if the Supreme Court orders him to pay back those tariffs. He might. He might not. The federal judiciary has one court that is dedicated to nothing but cases involving international trade. The judges on the Court of International Trade are this country's judicial experts on the subject, and they unanimously found the Trump tariffs to be unconstitutional and illegal. They were supported after the fact by an appeals court that heard Donald Trump's appeal and in their opinion said this, both the Trump trafficking tariffs and the reciprocal tariffs are unbounded in scope, amount, and duration. These tariffs apply to nearly all articles imported into the United States. And in the case of the reciprocal tariffs apply to almost all countries, impose high rates which are ever changing and excessive and are not limited in duration. The trafficking and reciprocal tariffs assert an expansive authority that is beyond the express limitations of the authority delegated to the President by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Donald Trump's tariffs on automobiles is hurting the American carmakers the most. The biggest victims are U.S. automakers because they rely heavily on North American supply chains. Mr. Trump's recent trade deals with South Korea and Japan cut their border taxes on autos to 15%. Ford this summer forecasted a $2 billion tariff hit to its bottom line this year. And General motors expects a $5 billion profit dent. This means US autoworkers will get thousands of dollars less in profit sharing checks. And, of course, it could also mean more layoffs in the American automobile industry. Joining us now is Jason Furman, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers for President Obama. He is a professor of economic policy at Harvard University. Professor Furman, thank you very much for joining us tonight. We see the Treasury Secretary is kind of alarmed at the idea that he might have to pay back tariffs that were illegal in the first place.

[G]

Yeah, the tariffs shouldn't have been collected in the first place. You know, I'm not a lawyer, but to me it reads very, very clear. It's also common sense. The idea that you could raise taxes on every single American without Congress having any say in it is just not something I ever thought a president was allowed to do. And the court agreed.

[B]

And so as we go forward and we're seeing the tariffs take effect, it's been a hard thing to track because they changed so much. But it now appears that if you build A car, if a car is made in Japan, it has an advantage over American made cars.

[G]

Yeah, that's right. I mean, the thing is, it's very hard to make every single piece of a car here in the United States. The way we have an auto industry is by integrating. And the really successful integration we've done is together with Canada and Mexico. That's what enables us to compete. You showed those numbers you talked about. We've been losing auto jobs basically all year. Auto workers are going to be hurt in terms of their paychecks. And then the last shoe to drop here is the auto companies haven't raised their prices that much so far, but they're losing a lot of money and they're not going to sell their cars at a loss forever. They are going to start raising prices. So consumers are going to be feeling this next.

[B]

And so what then happens on the inflation front?

[G]

We're already at basically 3% inflation. Back at the beginning of the year, everyone thought we'd be at 2% inflation now. 2% is the Fed target. If we were at 2% inflation, they'd be happily cutting rates right now. Mortgages would be more affordable, businesses would be more able to invest. But the inflation right now is 3%. And most economists and I would share this view think it's going to go up over the course of the rest of the year, not down, because the tariffs basically doubled in the month of August. So we haven't yet seen those in the data. And more businesses are continuing to pass them through to prices because they can't, you know, make losses forever. They go bankrupt if they didn't raise their prices.

[B]

What are the economic course corrections that we should have now? Not suggesting that it's possible with this administration, but what should we have?

[G]

Look, the President's telling the Fed to cut rates. I expect them to cut rates this month. But there's only so much that can do when we're doing so much damage to the economy, not just through these tariffs, but also the dramatic immigration restrictions are a big thing affecting labor force, affecting economic growth, another difficulty that the economy faces. So the President needs to figure out how to allow people to come into our country, you know, lawfully through a process and also reduce these tariffs. And at least on the second one, the court may help out the Supreme Court.

[B]

Professor Jason Furman, thank you very much for joining us again tonight.

[G]

Thank you.

[B]

We'll be right back. Harvard Economics Professor Jason Furman gets tonight's last word.

[C]

This ad is brought to you by Veeve Healthcare. The makers of Tobito dolutegravir lamivudine. If you're living with hiv, look ahead. Do chase a dream. Do consider how you stay undetectable. Do learn about Devato. Divato is a complete HIV treatment by prescription only for some people 12 and older. Your doctor will determine if Devato is right for you. Do find out how many medicines are in your HIV pill. Most HIV pills contain three or four. Devato is as effective with just two medicines. No other complete HIV pill contains fewer medicines then Devato. Do dream about tomorrow.

[A]

It is unknown if Devato is safe and effective if you have HIV and hepatitis B. If you have Hep B. Don't stop Dovato without talking to your doctor as it may get worse or harder to treat. Don't take Dovato if you're allergic to its ingredients or taking dofetilide due to serious or life threatening side effects. If you have a rash or allergic reaction symptoms, stop Dovato and get medical help right away. Other serious or life threatening side effects Effects include severe liver problems and lactic acid buildup. If you're female or obese, you may be more at risk. Tell your doctor about your medicines or supplements, medical conditions, liver or kidney problems, pregnancy, breastfeeding or planned pregnancy.

[C]

Do ask your doctor about fewer medicines. Visit devado.com or call 1-877-844-8872 to learn more.