Loading summary
Transcript85 lines
- [00:00]
Progressive Insurance Announcer
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.
- [00:20]
Grow Therapy Announcer
Fresh air, longer days, a chance to reset this season, let therapy be part of your spring cleaning. Clearing mental clutter, shaking off stuckness, and building something better. Grow Therapy helps you get there, whether it's your first time in therapy or your 50th. Grow makes it easier to find a therapist who fits you, not the other way around. You can search by what matters like insurance, specialty, identity or availability and get started in as little as two days. And if something comes up, you can Cancel up to 24 hours in advance at no cost. Grow Grow helps you find therapy on your time. Whatever challenges you're facing, Grow Therapy is here to help. Grow accepts over 100 insurance plans. Sessions average about $21 with insurance, and some pay as little as $0 depending on their plan. Visit growtherapy.com startnow today to get started. That's growtherapy.com startnow growtherapy.com startnow availability and coverage vary by state and insurance plan
- [01:26]
Charlie Sykes
ACAST powers the world's best podcasts Here's a show that we recommend. You want to be the most interesting
- [01:35]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
person in the room?
- [01:36]
Charlie Sykes
Then listen to the best one yet, our daily news show of pop culture meets business. We'll tell you why Abercrombie was saved by a $100 wedding dress, how keeping a Beyonce style brag book is gonna get you that promotion, and the AI drama that made Reddit our stock pick of the year. Jack and I worked on Wall street, got mba, sold our last company to Robinhood. Plus we were freshman year roommates, so I can tell you why Jack's a briefs guy. Not so.
- [01:57]
Progressive Insurance Announcer
Listen to T boy.
- [01:58]
Charlie Sykes
The best one yet. It'll be the brightest part of your day. And if this podcast lasts longer than
- [02:02]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
20 minutes, call your doctor.
- [02:04]
Charlie Sykes
Acast helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast.com I'm Charlie Sykes. Welcome back to the to the Contrary podcast. We're taping this on the Monday after Easter, which means we're taping it before Donald Trump's press conference on Monday. So probably everything that we thought was the big news might be changed. I still can't get past the fact I know it's ancient history now that the president of the United States on Easter Sunday morning bleeded this out unedited. Tuesday will be power plant day and bridge day all wrapped up in one in Iran. There will be nothing like it. Three exclamation points. Open the fucking straight, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in hell. Just watch. All in caps, exclamation point. Praise be to Allah. President Donald J. Trump. Now, I read the unedited version of that, right? The President of the United States actually dropped an F bomb while he casually is suggesting committing war crimes. And I understand that we've gotten numbed and inured to kind of the crazy and the demented, but, you know, as I wrote yesterday, you know, on the continuum of deranged, this may be the single most deranged post ever to come out from any president of the United States, including Donald Trump. And I concede that there's a lot of competition there. And yet, because this is where we are right now, by the time you hear this podcast, that may actually be kind of ancient history because there's so much else going on. So let's dive into the week. All right, Joining me on this episode of the podcast, we're very fortunate to have the Atlantic, Sarah Fitzpatrick, by the way, welcome to the podcast, Sarah.
- [03:57]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
Thank you for having me.
- [03:58]
Charlie Sykes
I have to read this bio. You're a staff writer at the Atlantic covering national security and the Department of Justice. Before coming to the Atlantic, she. You led award winning investigations and special projects as the senior investigative producer and story editor at NBC News and as an associate producer at 60 Minutes. She's an adjunct professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. So I am sufficiently impressed now. So we, we could. I'm tempted to ask you about 60 minutes. I mean. Oh, you know. Okay, well, I'm. You saw what Steve Croft said over the weekend, that it's kind of a snake pit. And I'm, I'm guessing that you're not thinking, no, I did. I wish I was back there. Yeah. Yeah.
- [04:38]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
Oh, I need to read it if Steve's saying that.
- [04:42]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah. You don't miss it, though, right? You don't, you don't wish like, I was. I was back there. You do. Okay.
- [04:49]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
I do miss it. I mean, there's nowhere better than the Atlantic. I would say. There's nowhere else I would rather be. It is, it is an incredibly special place and a really extraordinary group of colleagues, especially for this moment in time. But I loved 60 Minutes. I had the most amazing time there. They're some of my best friends, and it's a really really special place. And I am so saddened to see what's been happening and what I've been reading about it. And I think there is something so important. You know, I come from television and there's something so important about that 12 minute piece on television. Part of the reason that I even now, like, now I'm in magazines, but I still spend a lot of time going on and talking about my work because there's something about seeing it on the screen that translates for the audience, for the voter in a different way. And so it's such a special place. There's nothing else like it. And it is a real testament, I think, unfortunately, to how institutions can change
- [05:50]
Charlie Sykes
much faster than we ever did, especially now. No, I mean, it's the storytelling ability of shows like 60 Minutes that are like you, I cross between print and this kind of video stuff. And there's no question about it, you have so much more impact when you tell those stories in a visual way. It is extraordinary though. You know, I sometimes think about it. We think about, you know, what, you know, how do we want be remembered? What's our legacy? And for Barry Weiss to come in and inshidify one of the most storied institutions in American journalism. I mean, I know the money is good, I know there's a lot of pressure, but you know, if I would prefer not to have that on my resume. Okay, so let's just dive into where we're at. We don't know what the President said in his Monday press conference. Any thoughts about the Easter Sunday bleat? The New York Times actually had a really interesting headline about how casually Donald Trump is throwing out the idea of war crimes, suggesting that broad understanding that you bomb power plants, things like that, that is a war crime. But your thought about the praise a la crazy bastard Easter morning bleed.
- [07:03]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
I have to say I cover national security and the people that I speak to on a daily basis are among the most serious, unflappable, you know, very experienced. It's hard to get a rise out of them. And they looked at this kind of the events of the last 48 hours as tremendous alarm to a point of tremendous emotion. Like really, really frightened, concerned, angry. And I think it's really telling because it illustrates, I think the Post illustrates a couple things that I think help the audience understand what, what's happening not just in our Pentagon, but kind of across the government overall, which is a tremendous. Like this belief in leading by bravado, leading by threats, leading by upping, upping the ante and upping the stakes in a significant way. But without I. It appears, and I think my reporting absolutely suggests this or reinforces this, that the. Without an understanding of what the ramifications of making those kinds of statements are, which is. That is perceived by the Iranians, I think, 100% differently and absolutely the opposite of what Donald Trump and Pete Hexev think that is being said. There is no universe among anyone who is an expert in Iranian history, this regime in particular, the current geopolitical landscape. There is no universe in which this Iranian regime looks at that and says, like, yeah, let's like, change our posture and make a choice. This is an existential threat to them. And they view those kinds of bombastic statements as a reason to escalate and a reason not to trust the United States. And secondly, the. The praise to Allah, again, it's such a. It's just such an unfortunate moment in our history because I think it reflects this lack of understanding and lack of curiosity about this group of people, these millions of millions of people, and how that might impact your Muslim service members, Muslim Americans. Like, it's just a. It is so telling about how the. And I hate to be kind of super institutionalist about this, but I really do think that this is one of the stories of our times, which is we have spent so much time, energy, taxpayer dollars building up, I would argue, the best military intelligence apparatus in the world. We have so much expertise, or we did at one point. A lot of it is gone now, and yet we are not translating that into our actual policy or actual behavior. And I think there are real life or death consequences for that. And I unfortunately think that we may look at this tweet, or whatever it is, going forward decades into the future as an important moment of escalation in a way that had so many unintended consequences.
- [10:22]
Charlie Sykes
No, I agree with you completely on that. But there's kind of a split screen when it comes to this question of expertise, because as we've seen, the military has been able to pull off some operations with incredible competence and skill. And so again, in the split screen, you have a military that is capable of executing very complex plans very, very well at the same time that you have the political leadership being as erratic and as chaotic as possible. And let's talk about this, because your most recent story, this is all taking place, all taking place in the middle of a purge of the military. You know, as you wrote, that army shake up in the middle of a. Does that matter? And why is it happening?
- [11:06]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
Absolutely, it matters. I think it Matters in ways that perhaps the Trump administration doesn't fully appreciate. Why is it happening now? It's happening now because I think two things. One is when Trump gets cornered, when Trump feels nervous, he tends to fire people. This is kind of a knee jerk reaction. But two, I think, and my reporting is very clear on this, that up until this point, there had been a very clear edict within the West Wing. There will be no firings of Cabinet officials before the midterms. This is in part, I think, reflects Susie Wiles, his chief of staff's, kind of influence on projecting strength, having a different type of administration than the first Trump presidency. And this was a very clear, like, we are not doing this under no circumstances, et cetera. In part because they are concerned that they could not get anyone confirmed because they've had a weakening on Capitol Hill and among the Republican Party. But the data, you know, there's often this disconnect between the information out on the ground, the public polling, the conversations that people are having on the Hill, etcetera, And what makes it to the president and what makes it to the West Wing. And for a long time, I think there was a disconnect between just what this polling is looking like around swing voters and above Republicans and even above those who identify themselves as, quote, unquote, maga. There has been a splitting of MAGA in a really material way. And so now this kind of sudden, it seems sudden, but I think it was a plan that was put into action quite quickly. And we know that because there is no one lined up for any of these positions. It's not like they had somebody ready to go, okay, here's the strategy, here's the rollout, here's what we're going to do. And that suggests that they see this moment as a moment that they have to act very quickly because there is a real acknowledgment within the White House that Republicans may lose the House and the Senate shortly. And that is a earthquake happening, you know, down Pennsylvania Avenue. Your question about these firings specifically at the military, they matter immensely and maybe in ways that you would think don't matter.
- [13:26]
Charlie Sykes
No, I would think they actually might matter even more long term.
- [13:29]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
Yeah, I think that sometimes we, we view. You know, I'm an investigative reporter, so I don't come from the world of like palace intrigue coverage, usually covering crimes, but the palace intrigue is telling here because it is a reflection of the fact that they are, they have tried to. You're losing expertise. There's like this war on expertise this
- [13:54]
Charlie Sykes
war on generations, for generations.
- [13:57]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
And even, you know, there's some people who have been forced out purely because they are somewhat associated with the fact that they served under the Biden administration. But there's no other reason other than that. And so when you lose those people in mass, not just one, but like at scale, at all levels of the Pentagon, what happens is you are losing one expertise. People who have reps like you and I both know the number of times you've done something is directly impacted on your ability to discern what to do, how to react, how quickly to react, and to anticipate what might be coming around the corner. That's the value of time and time spent in an institution. And so what we see in this Iran war is a lack of understanding and acknowledgment of what the downside risks and anticipating what your adversary will do once you make a move. So it's a real problem because those voices are then not there. Two, you have the problem of and you have the problem of you. The Trump administration went to war without congressional authority. They are now having to kind of backtrack that in public and in private. And the key people that would go to the Hill and sell this for you, convince those skeptical senators, Republican senators, convince those skeptical committee staff that are asking you questions. Those are people who have reputations. And if you don't have anyone who has a personal reputation, that effort is like dead in the water. And that's where they're gonna have a real problem, I think, in the coming weeks as they try and pass this.
- [15:34]
Charlie Sykes
That's a very, very interesting point. But going back to the firing of the generals, it doesn't, at least from the outside, look like they're being fired because of the fact that the Iran war is going wrong. It appears more of a loyalty test. And I guess the longer term question is, does Donald Trump really, is he in the process of politicizing the military where loyalty replaces expertise? And the long term consequences of that should seem like they're obvious. But talk to me about that as well. And I guess this also raises the question we've been asking for months now, Is there any point at which the military would refuse an illegal order from the president? And I think it's pretty clear that they're following all of the orders and yet we are seeing this attrition. So is there, is there, are these separate issues or are they connected?
- [16:30]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
Nothing's happening in a vacuum. They're all connected. I think that's absolutely important. We've seen the Trump administration. And I see this actually at the Justice Department as well, where there were all sorts of people who were willing to come into the Justice Department that were Republicans who feel strongly about President Trump's agenda and the possibilities there. And they would not do it. Not because it was a cut in salary or et cetera, et cetera, because they had to take a loyalty oath, essentially a loyalty oath to Donald Trump, to Donald Trump, not to the Constitution. And for even the most extreme figures, that was a step too far. And so you lost this huge talent pool of potential people to come in. And so I sometimes describe the current Justice Department as like, the Z team. It's not the B team, it's the Z team. No. And you see it. You see it in the mistakes that you make. They see it in these, like, basic, basic errors. I didn't even go to law school and, like, I think I could, could probably muddle through. But the second point is it is about, you know, the military for good reason. You know, there is a history and a reason and a thought behind a very specific chain of command, and you are instructed to follow that. Like, that is so central for a variety of reasons that keeps lots of people safe. But you are seeing an effort to drive out anyone who is perceived as voicing opinions, challenging things, even in the most delicate or slight way. And the ramifications of that are huge because these are life or death situations. You know, we're talking about this rescue that happened over. Yeah, we're all talking about that as a. As a heroic thing. And I'm so glad he's safe, and I'm so glad that that happened. But that is a unnecessary operation. And, you know, we would be having a completely different conversation today if any one thing went wrong there.
- [18:42]
Progressive Insurance Announcer
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.
- [19:01]
Grow Therapy Announcer
Fresh air, longer days, a chance to reset. This season, let therapy be part of your spring cleaning. Clearing mental clutter, shaking off stuckness, and building something better. Grow Therapy helps you get there, whether it's your first time in therapy or your 50th grow makes it easier to find a therapist who fits you, not the other way around. You can search by what matters like insurance, specialty, identity or availability and get started in as little as two days. And if Something comes up, you can Cancel up to 24 hours in advance at no cost. Grow helps you find therapy on your time. Whatever challenges you're facing, Grow Therapy is here to help Grow accepts over 100 insurance plans. Sessions average about $21 with insurance, and some pay as little as $0 depending on their plan. Visit growththerapy.com start now today to get started. That's growththerapee.com startnow growtherapy.com startnow availability and coverage vary by state and insurance plan.
- [20:09]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, so let me give you the hypothetical that Donald Trump orders the bombing and this could have already happened by the time people hear this on Tuesday, or orders the bombing of water plants or desalination plants. Things that international lawyers will tell you are war crimes. Now, in the past, you would have command officers who would talk to their lawyers, right? The JAG Corp. As you've written, one of the first things that Donald Trump and Pete Hegsett did was they purged the ranks of the lawyers. So how does it work now? How does a general know whether or not the order is legal, illegal, and whether or not he's going to execute it?
- [21:00]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
So I think I'm not inside the Pentagon. And unfortunately, one of the things that makes this so difficult is that we have the Pentagon has gone even beyond the law in terms of allowing the press to go in there. So we have much less visibility, much less understanding in real time, and we're often piecing things together after the fact. However, I will say that enough people are so concerned about this issue that we have quite good visibility and understanding. It is a real problem on a couple of fronts. One is that traditionally, yes, before anything would happen, there would be an intensive process discussion, pros and cons, evaluating. I was with some national security officials earlier or last week and they were explaining how sometimes the lawyers would not say, yes, you can hit this thing or don't hit this thing. They may make a recommendation. Of all the targets, is this one that we want to take? Here's here. What is the risk reward? And now that process is extremely curtailed. And one, because there's just less people. Two, because in many cases the Jags are not brought in until it's too late or until they don't have full information. One of the things that I know I've from my reporting is there's a lot that's going on at the Pentagon that isn't even being captured in writing and an effort to kind of get around all sorts of different laws and norms that keep visibility wider than Just a few people.
- [22:33]
Charlie Sykes
Are they still using the signal chats?
- [22:36]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
Yeah, I can confirm that. There's definitely some signaling going on. Anyone who wants to add me to one of those signal chats, please do it. I'm all in.
- [22:45]
Charlie Sykes
They just might. Okay. I love the phrase that you use. You were switching back to the Department of Justice, that they have the Z team, because it was easy to dunk on Pam Bondi, which I'm more than willing to do. I mean, basically, in the end, she was insufficiently ghastly for the job. She was unable to deliver Donald Trump the heads on the platter that he absolutely demanded. And yet, as you point out, number one, her department botched one case after another. And there are limitations on what the Attorney General can do. There are federal courts, which are becoming increasingly skeptical. You have federal grand juries, and there is a school of thought out there that says that Pam Bondi's gotta be doing. What else could I have done? So give me your sense of that. Because in some ways, she ran up against the limits. If, in fact, if you purge the Department of Justice of competent people and you go into, you know, federal courts and federal grand juries and you don't have the evidence, you're not going to get the indictments. But Donald Trump doesn't care about that. He just wants the head on the platter.
- [23:51]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
Right, Right. And I think I've had some lawyers that are absolutely, you know, close to Clamp Pine. Bondi, believe that she did a great job. Say to me, you know, actually, these were. When some people have tried to say, oh, there were these, these were impossible things that Bondi was asked to do, I don't actually think that's true. I think they were very possible, at least to get. Maybe not to win a case and put somebody in jail, but you could absolutely get to the first rung of making, you know, having a. A accurate lawsuit, having. Getting to the discovery process, like actually courts. One thing that people within the Justice Department are always trying to point out to me is it's actually quite easy to get a grand jury.
- [24:38]
Charlie Sykes
Oh, it's usually almost slam dunk. Right?
- [24:41]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
Usually. Usually it's like, it's very hard to mess that up. And so I think there is a valid argument for these were winnable things. Maybe not winnable, but at least you could get the political win of having to have someone show up in court, a political adversary show up in court, and they couldn't even make it that far. But again, it's a combination of factors. It's not just staffing, it's also about resources. So if you are diverting, you know, huge groups of people to read the Epstein files, even though you do have programs and you've had programs for 10 years that could do read that discovery, but instead you're using high level attorneys, taking them off of other cases to do that. Or two, you're diverting all of your resources towards accompanying ice, doing enforcement efforts, helping the military do a law enforcement operation in Venezuela, you're diverting resources that aren't going towards these basic cases. And I think we're seeing that. We're seeing how you spend your time and how you spend your money ultimately determines the outcomes here.
- [25:54]
Charlie Sykes
So what's the plan B? Now over the weekend we got these reports from Fox News that the shortlist would include Alina Haba and Jeanine Pirro. Should we take those seriously? Or is this kind of that Trump two step where I'm gonna give you Matt Gaetz and then when you turn Matt Gaetz down, whoever I give you next, you're just gonna, you're gonna be so relieved that it's not somebody absolutely deplorable. What do you think? What do you think's going on right now? What's their plan B?
- [26:18]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
I don't think we should ever assume that there's a two step here. Like when Donald Trump says something or thinks something, really, we have to take him very literally. And I think we sometime often in the media make the mistake of not doing that. Yes, those people are absolutely in the running. They are out, they are campaigning. If you are in Palm beach and you're at a cocktail party, you are getting a full court press from all of these individuals who are trying to grab this job.
- [26:42]
Charlie Sykes
By the way, an interesting way the court operates that it is the cocktail parties at Mar a Lago that's going to determine who's going to run the Department of Justice now.
- [26:52]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
Yes, and that is.
- [26:54]
Charlie Sykes
Right.
- [26:54]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
That is in itself actually very concerning and disturbing even from a national security perspective. Like, anyway, I could talk about that all day. But I do think what is important here is especially for something like the Department of Justice, which covers national security, which covers all sorts of things that are military, military adjacent, terrorism, etc. The fact that you don't have someone ready to go in the wings is a actual continuality of government problem. And I think we should not be understating why that's important and how our adversaries are looking at that. You don't want a bunch of different people. It's not as just ugly, but like from a counterintelligence perspective. You have all these different people who might be the person might not like. You're opening yourself up to interference in ways that may be subtle but ultimately quite impactful.
- [27:53]
Progressive Insurance Announcer
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.
- [28:13]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
The Scouting reports end Unlock the savings
- [28:15]
Charlie Sykes
at Boost Mobile, get Unlimited Wireless for $25 a month forever and keep your phone. It's a veteran move. Unlock the savings@boostmobile.com Unlock $25 forever requires customers to remain active on Boost Mobile Unlimited Wireless Plan. For full offer details, visit boostmobile.com so let's stick with the purges for a moment. Now, what I wrote last week was that I thought, look, you know, Kristi Noeman and Pam Bondi were uniquely unsuited for their job yet. And I don't want to play the sexism card, so I'm just throwing this out. But so you have Kristi Noem fired, you know, Pam Bondi fired, and yet guys like Pete Hegseth, Kash Patel, Howard Lutnick still have their jobs. What do you make of that?
- [28:58]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
You're not. I know this. I have reported this already. There was a discussion widely within the White House and those close to it that they wanted to do this purge. And then they were concerned that if they, if they got rid of all the attractive, attractive women, then that might put them in a worse position. And so maybe we need to wait a little bit. So ironically, actually, the sexism may have helped some of these women stay in these jobs longer than they anticipated. But this is not a hypothetical. I have had so many Republican sources express real alarm and concern about the double standard between women and men, even in the Trump Cabinet. And I think it's really instructive because we see, actually you have a perfect example in Alex Acosta, the first Trump Cabinet secretary who had to leave over allegations of kind of mismanaging or perhaps worse, his role in the Epstein case. And that's a totally different split stream. He was protected for a long time. He was paraded out onto the White House lawn and given this long goodbye about how great he was. Pam Bondi, I mean, people were leaking within the Justice Department photos of a picture of her in the trash. And that is not accidental. That is not some, you know. So I think it is. You cannot deny. And I think any woman, unfortunately, including me, has experienced some of this, which is the way in which strength is perceived, female versus male, especially by Trump and those close to him, has a disproportionate impact. And you can think that you are telegraphing strength, and in fact, it's working against you.
- [30:49]
Charlie Sykes
He did treat them as if they were completely disposable. Very obvious. Now, you were one of the reporters that broke the story about the other top administration officials. So talk to me about that. Who might be on the bubble. Howard Lutnick's name pops up. And I'm thinking that, has there been anybody that has more egregiously sucked? Oh, yes, it's a lot of competition. But I mean, why Howard Lutnick? Because he has been working so hard to kiss up to Donald Trump.
- [31:21]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
Why Howard Lutnick? I think there's. It's the Epstein files. I mean, you can, if anyone takes the time and energy, which actually is quite difficult given the volume of information and how poorly it's been done. But you have someone who is so clearly a close friend of Jeffrey Epstein, but not only that, lied about, like, made a point of going on national television and then having to correct himself when under oath about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. And I think this is an important story. I. I talk about it all the time. I've reported this in a piece, I think a month ago or two months ago, that relationships to Jeffrey Epstein, the White House and all the national security apparatus gets so nervous when I ask questions about, did this come up in the vetting? Because either.
- [32:10]
Charlie Sykes
Really?
- [32:11]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
Yes.
- [32:11]
Charlie Sykes
Really?
- [32:12]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
Yes. And I will never. And so I think it is a precarious. You know, Trump has tried to telegraph that he's not concerned about this, but we have reported, I have reported that he is very angry, he is very nervous, and this is an issue that is not going away. And I believe, based on my reporting, that this will be one of the major issues of the midterms, because it's not.
- [32:37]
Charlie Sykes
This is really interesting.
- [32:39]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
It's because it's gone beyond. And this is a bipartisan issue, too, which I think finds so fascinating. You have have two political parties that up until this point were willing to protect their elder statesmen and women, but primarily elder statesmen, because they were both the reality of the elite. Everybody had some skin in the game here. And for the first time, you have Republicans and Democrats who are willing to say, no way, this is not worth it. And this is a trust in government issue, this is about can the American public trust their leaders? And are the elites held to a different standard than we are? And so I think that this has worked its way. And I have a piece coming about this, hopefully soon, if we stop launching other wars, that talks about how this will really, I think, has become just beyond a Washington issue, beyond a conspiracy theory issue, but this is a mainstream issue that may drive voting behavior.
- [33:46]
Charlie Sykes
I think this is so fascinating because this is the one story that in the Trump era has legs. You know, we have been through this process where there's a scandal and you think it's going to be a big scandal. You know, on Earth 2.0 would have dominated headlines for months, and it's gone by Tuesday. And the Epstein files, despite all of the attempts to distract, to cover up, to botch the rollout, it's still there. It's still the stinking fish at the heart of this administration, including the firing of Pam Bonney. It just won't go away, which is really remarkable. So we're in the middle of the war in Iran, and if you're deeply, deeply cynical, you might think that the war in Iran was part of a wag the dog to distract attentions from that. And yet it hasn't done that. I mean, well, at least temporarily, but it's not going away. And I do think you're right, the fact that it has marinated for so long out there, particularly in Trump's space, but it does paint this picture, if you wanted to paint a picture of the privileged elite and us versus them and a kind of corrupt system, it really embodied, it feels like all of the planets align on this story.
- [35:02]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
Absolutely.
- [35:03]
Charlie Sykes
And it's quite easy to understand.
- [35:05]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
Precisely. And I'm actually, I'm going to write a book about this exact issue because I've been covering EPSTEIN for over 10 years, since I was back at 60 Minutes, actually. And so it is this incredible moment. And I think part of it is that most political issues are quite difficult to communicate. And the thing that makes the United States so special and yet so challenging is that you have a huge population with all sorts of different interests, access to information, et cetera. But you can say the word Epstein and it means something to even someone who, you know, like, there's quite good polling on this, that it is a almost universal understanding. There's so few issues that do that. But I also think it's kind of, it's an exciting issue because I think it's, it is bringing people into the political process. Marjorie Taylor, Greene, I forget what the exact statistic was, but at one point calls to her office were, I don't know if they ever surpassed cost of health care, but it was right up there. And that is really telling you something about what the American public wants, which is transparency. And especially coming post the Biden, like how the Democrats handled Biden and Biden's health. It cuts both ways in a really important way.
- [36:28]
Charlie Sykes
Well, and there are real stories and they're real victims. And I think the iconic picture of Pam Bondi's tenure is going to be that picture when she's in the Senate hearing and all of the Epstein victims are standing up, raising their hands and she wouldn't even turn around and look at them. She wouldn't even talk to them, even
- [36:44]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
when asked three times.
- [36:46]
Charlie Sykes
Right.
- [36:47]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
Like that is such a. I would love to know what was going through her head when she was making those calculations because one time you can make an argument, but three times, including by members of your own party, what is the upside there?
- [37:03]
Charlie Sykes
So tell me about, you mentioned that there's a lot of concern and nervousness in the Trump administration about this. What are they most nervous about? I mean, we all have our suspicions. But, but you know, what is Donald Trump most worried about?
- [37:18]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
Do you think so? Donald Trump, it's very interesting. He has not been very transparent with his staff, even with those who are closest to him. He did not prepare them for what was going to be in these files. So everyone was caught completely off guard. He has not shared even in the closest of confidences what it is that he's so frightened or worried about. But we can tell by his behavior. Right. Like you can say he's not worried about this. But all of my reporting suggests that the push from the White House to kill the bill to release the Epstein
- [37:57]
Charlie Sykes
files, it was amazing.
- [37:58]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
Was only comparable to when it is the top issue of your mission by people who've been on the Hill forever and ever. So we know that it's a priority. We know it's a big deal. I think there's two factors at play. I mean, there's whatever personal exposure, which is not insignificant. I mean he is in there thousands and thousands of times. We have Bannon in there. We have so many members of his cabinet who are in there, which is not to say that they are accused of committing crimes, but they absolutely were in close proximity after someone has been committed or has committed and been convicted.
- [38:32]
Charlie Sykes
We have that 13 year old girl now.
- [38:34]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
I mean that story that is there, that is there. And the FBI had found that to be. I've reported on this. They have found that to be significant. But I think there's a separate thing which you. You bring up, and I think it's a really good point, which is, what is Donald Trump's super. Like, if he has a superpower, what is that superpower? And those Republican strategists who are really close to the White House who understand this most intimately will say Trump's superpower has been that he has been able to present himself, even though the evidence, like the fact pattern, is actually to the contrary. But he has been able to present himself as the outsider. He has been able to present himself as not the establishment. And when you are on the record threatening congressmen not to release the Epstein files because you're. He said. He's openly said this. I was worried about my friends. I had friends coming to me, and they were worried about it. And so that is just something that has changed his, like his most appealing political pro into a con that he cannot get away from. And I think that, you know, people talk about this piercing the veil a little bit here, and I think that that might. That may be accurate. Now, again, we are so far from the midterms. Anything can happen. And I think what we've learned is, you know, even the events of this weekend in Iran, we have Cuba. Like, there's so many things on the horizon that will distract, but this is, this is a significant change.
- [40:10]
Charlie Sykes
Well, I want to talk to you about Cuba in just a moment because that's something else I don't fully understand. Like, because why is he distracting attention from something that. Probably a win for. Probably a win for him. But back to Epstein. It is such a fascinating story, including all of the people that gravitated around Epstein, reading the files and the emails. He doesn't strike me as an unusually charming, witty, entertaining individual outside of certain areas. And you look at the list of the people who have associated with him and like, what was that magic magnetic draw that would get Bill Gates and Alan Dershowitz and the Prince and all of these folks? I mean, what, what, what is it that we don't understand? Did he create this aura of like, this is the ultimate in group. This is the ultimate. Was it all about sex or was there. Which. Which, by the way, would be a sufficient explanation probably, but was, you know, what was the draw?
- [41:12]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
So I think it's really important when I talk about the Epstein sex trafficking operation is that there were late, as I almost described when I teach it, actually, I talk about the Concentric circles or kind of the hierarchical. And I think it's actually, over the past couple months, I've changed my mind in terms of how I think about this operation because originally I thought it was much more contained, much smaller, and now I realize that actually it was much more like an organized crime operation where there's lots of different things going on and not everyone is taking part in the most serious crimes. So to your point, absolutely. I've had people who, you know, believe that he did not have a sparkling personality. In fact, he was incredibly socially awkward. Like, this is not. No one is going to him to hang out with him for his personality. And anyone will tell you that, even those closest to him. But there's two things. One is obviously access to criminal and criminal adjacent behavior. So there's a sex trafficking operation which has been absolutely. Young women, young women, children. There are also. He would sometimes. Perhaps you didn't go to him to, you know, commit crimes, but perhaps you did want to have an affair. Perhaps you did want to use a property where you could meet someone. Perhaps you did need, you know, perhaps your Elon Musk and. And you need a party to go to. Like, there were all sorts of different things that he was providing. And I think, Charlie, you and I both know these types of people in Washington and around where, like, they're connectors and they connect people and it may be for funding, it may be for this person's got trouble overseas and can you help him out? And those people are very, very smart because they work themselves into a way that you don't even realize that you owe them a favor. And it is kind of like a mafia like situation where you don't realize how far you're in until you're there. And I do think that there he did this and Maxwell and those, the girls that they trained. Like there's a whole hierarchy here. And they worked very, very hard at keeping people in the orbit, even those who may not have had any knowledge of any criminal activity, which I think if anyone was looking closely, you at least could suspect. But it gave, it created this isolation, it created this social. Ah, well, if Bill Clinton is here,
- [43:48]
Charlie Sykes
yeah, you want to be in that party, right.
- [43:50]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
What I'm seeing with my own eyes is not as bad as I thought it was. And it created a level of insulation, which is why this could go on for so long.
- [43:58]
Charlie Sykes
But to what end? I guess this is where. And again, I feel like I'm getting into some sort of paranoid thing. But, but, you know, this sounds like a Vast honey trap as well. And so, you know, when you look at all the different times that law enforcement said, hey, you don't want to go there. You want to close the books on all of that, you wonder, and all the speculation about his ties to intelligence agencies, the Kompromat, and everything seems kind of plausible. What do you think?
- [44:28]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
I think it is absolutely plausible. I think he encouraged that, that opinion and that perception. It insulated him in some ways. We do know he was very, you know, he was found with passports from other countries. We know that, according to some, he provided some evidence in the Bear Stearns trial. So, like there, I think what's important about the Epstein story is it is not no longer conspiracy. There was a vast operation, a web of people on both sides in places of power who associated with this person in crimes were committed. And I just think it is no longer. The reason why it's so sticky, you know, like kind of sticky in the social, social media sense is because it reinforces something that Americans are kind of primed to believe that is true, which is that there are elites and they have each other's backs and they don't have your back. And what the Epstein story lays bare is that, yes, in fact, that was true.
- [45:34]
Charlie Sykes
Well, and to your larger point, I'm anxious to see your article about this, the impact on the midterm elections, because as a result of Donald Trump's pressure, you do have some Republicans who had to go on record, you know, saying we didn't want to open up. Now, eventually they just all caved in and they voted to release the records. But still. Okay, so in the time that we have left, I'm fascinated by the Epstein story, but in the time we have left, you had a story just in the last couple of days. Trump's eye is already on Cuba, and I think his eye's been on Cuba for a long time. And the regime there looks like it is ready to topple over. There are a lot of Cuban Americans. This strikes me as sort of a logical follow up to Venezuela. So in many ways, whatever Iran is a distraction from is also a distraction from the Cuba thing. So where are we at on Cuba? Is that the next regime change?
- [46:27]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
Yes, 100%. In fact, in that article, I have multiple sources who it was openly stated Venezuela is the dry run for Cuba. That was openly said. And I was hearing that as early as last summer, and it obviously intensified up until recently. I think that, yes, Cuba has been in the president's sights for a long time. It goes back to his first presidency, he had people coming into the White House for meetings about possible, you know, financial interests and Trump hotels and things that might be of interest there. And I do believe that it is in part a, Again, everything goes back to the midterms in some ways. It is in part a play to placate a group of people that are perceived as having a tremendous amount of political power and financial power. In terms of donors, you have the south. You kind of the South Florida, which is a huge group of people who have either came from Cuba or have family there or feel very strongly for, you know, for serious reasons. But you also have a group of individuals, corporations who had their property or had other things seized, who have been seeking to reclaim that for a very long time. And so you kind of have this storm in which everything has aligned. You have a president who's willing to take this type of military risk, and then you have interests who very much want that to happen and have been calling for that for a long time. I think the. Again, the potential problem here is a lack of knowledge, expertise, insight into who you're dealing with. Cuba is different than Iran, but there are some similarities in terms of their use, their intelligence services and sophistication there, their use of asymmetric warfare. Like, there are things that are going to make. This is not an easy cakewalk. We do see the military preparing. We see stationing of boats nearby. We see plans happening. And my sources have been told, like, when the president gives a sign, this is what we will do. But again, there has not been a solid plan for after, and I think that should be concerning everyone.
- [48:52]
Charlie Sykes
So in Donald Trump's mind, he goes into the midterms, as you know, Donald Trump, liberator of Venezuela, Cuba and Iran. You know that I have done all of these things that other presidents would do, but it is interesting that he does want. He's geared for the cakewalk, right? I mean, Venezuela was the dry run, but it also gave him that false sense that you can do these things without paying. Paying any price. We'll see what happens after Iran, because we don't know what his capacity for pain is in terms of military setbacks. We know he's sensitive to the markets, but we have not had anything really bad. I'm not trying to downplay the deaths of the servicemen, but we're like one drone, one missile, one suicide bomber away from really testing his appetite for that, aren't we?
- [49:44]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
And the point that I made earlier, which is that, what if something happens at home? What if this conflict through terrorism, through some other thing comes home, that's going to be a completely different kind of game changer.
- [49:57]
Charlie Sykes
And, but that may be a pretext, too, right? That may be a pretext for Donald Trump to do various things domestically that he's clearly itching to do in the homeland.
- [50:05]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
But again, it just speaks to kind of the broader environment here, which is a weakened United States, not in a United States of strength. And I don't think you could find one law enforcement official. I mean, you could find Pete Hegseth and a couple people around him. But are we safer than we were? I don't think there's any question in terms of our readiness and an ability to take on multiple threats at once. If the people who have to get those 3am calls, they are very frightened about that. And I think, you know, we, we in the media need to be highlighting that because that is a major risk.
- [50:44]
Charlie Sykes
You know, there was that famous question that Ronald Reagan had, you know, when he's running against Jimmy Carter, are you better off than you were four years ago? There are fundamental questions, Are you safer now? Is America more respected now? Are you more prosperous now? Those are dangerous questions right now for the administration. Sarah Fitzpatrick, thank you so much for your time. You can read Sarah's work in the Atlantic. She is a prolific writer. Sarah, thank you for all your time this morning. I appreciate it very, very much.
- [51:09]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
Oh, my gosh, thank you so much. And thank you for such a, such an excellent conversation and asking such great questions.
- [51:14]
Charlie Sykes
Well, thank you and thank you all for watching and listening to this episode of to the Contrary podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. Especially this week, we really do need to keep reminding ourselves that we are not the crazy ones. Thank you.
- [51:40]
Progressive Insurance Announcer
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.
- [51:59]
Charlie Sykes
Traffic may be locked, but savings isn't. Unlock the savings at Boost Mobile with unlimited wireless for just $25 a month. Forever. No contracts, no hikes, and you keep your phone. Unlock the savings@boostmobile.com Unlock $25 forever requires customers to remain active on Boost limited wireless plan. For full offer details, visit boost mobile.com Acast powers the world's best podcasts.
- [52:20]
Sarah Fitzpatrick
Here's a show that we recommend.
- [52:25]
Charlie Sykes
Hi, I'm Henrik and I make a podcast called Fall Asleep with Henrik. It's for people who can't sleep. And it's just me. I talk for about an hour. I improvise. No script, no music, no advice. Nothing you really need to do. You don't even have to listen, to be honest. Just put it on and let yourself drift. Fall Asleep with Henrik is available wherever you get your podcast. ACAST helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast.com.