Why control the Epstein narrative if WH has nothing to hide? — Debate roundup

[0:00] Stunning new reporting from The New York Times recounts the administration's freakout over the Epstein files and its efforts to contain the fallout. [0:07] According to The Times, on July 17th, 2025, top administration officials met in the White House Situation Room without the president to address the backlash over the DOJ's handling of the Epstein investigation and to attempt to regain control. [0:21] That is the stuff that I think is the fuel for conspiracies around a broader cover-up of this Epstein scandal. [0:31] I mean, I just found this article so entertaining, which is not what you were supposed to get from it. [0:36] I mean, but it's revelatory. [0:38] It's revelatory of the degree to which, at least at the outset of this administration, they were so plugged into the online right, which is where this stuff lives. [0:46] It is not really bleeding out into the real world, and I have proof. [0:50] It's not hard to find polling, even last year, where Republicans, Democrats, majorities say, [0:54] we don't approve of how this administration is handling the Epstein files. [0:57] But is it a salient issue? [0:58] Fox News Channel, in July, surveyed the people who said, we disapprove of this president, 54%. [1:03] Litany of reasons they offered, you can imagine. [1:06] 1% said the Epstein files, and that was exclusively Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents. [1:12] It was just not a, it was a MAGA thing, but it was an online MAGA thing. [1:16] It wasn't in the real world. [1:16] I mean, but in that meeting, I mean, the vice president thought it was a real thing, and thought that it was effectively, I think the quote was, this is going to, or Dan Bongino said this, he said, this is going to be the president's Iran contract. [1:32] Part of the reason Dan Bongino would say something like this is because they literally brought the conspiracy theorists into the White House. [1:39] As Noah said, he is an extremely online person, as is the president of the United States. [1:44] It makes a lot of sense that he'd have interest in this, but all of this gives me very much so, like Russiagate vibes. [1:49] The reality is that the president wasn't a Russian asset. [1:53] He was never the Manchurian president, but he certainly seemed to act like it. [1:57] He was obsessed with the story in the same way that his critics were obsessed with kind of promulgating these conspiracies. [2:03] He fed it and gave it energy. [2:05] And I think the behavior of the administration with respect to the Epstein scandal, which I think, quite honestly, is driven primarily by speculation, by this belief that there must be some deeper story here. [2:17] When, in fact, this is something that has occurred across multiple administrations, across multiple political parties, the reality is that if there was any sort of criminal conduct in these files related to the president of the United States, the current one, we would have known about it already. [2:33] Everything leaks. [2:35] It hasn't happened. [2:35] So, you know, they didn't even know that either. [2:37] I mean, part of what you get from the story is that they were desperate to find out if there was stuff about Trump. [2:44] Yes. [2:45] Stuff that was perhaps embarrassed. [2:46] So they were like, we've got to figure out if he's implicated here, and they dug through it. [2:50] Right. [2:51] With all due respect, the Russiagate comparison, I think, doesn't hold up because Robert Mueller in the Mueller report said that there was some problems here going on. [3:01] Maybe the term collusion isn't really a legal one, but there were some issues there, and he was hoping that the Congress would take it up through or it would go through a legal process once Trump got out of office. [3:12] So that was that, and unfortunately, because of the attorney general and all kinds of different things, they decided not to do that. [3:17] But we can't just absolve him from whatever was going on with the Russians, so there's that. [3:22] Now, as far as Epstein is concerned, the guy's name is in the Epstein files thousands of times. [3:28] He was best friends with him for years. [3:31] He was on his plane with him. [3:32] They were big. [3:33] They were, you know, involved in all kinds of things, and there are two and a half million files that still have not been released. [3:44] And if Pam Bondi and Dan Bongino and Kash Patel and all the people in the Situation Room, which is where you usually go when you need things to be really, really, really secure, [3:54] why are they going to the situation room? [3:56] This is just giving me UAP vibes here. [3:58] No. [3:58] This is me, too. [3:59] They're concerned about what did the president know, how much did he know, and why. [4:04] Is he legally culpable? [4:05] We don't know. [4:06] But he all has his minions in the Department of Justice who are covering this for him. [4:09] I have to agree with you. [4:11] This is not how you behave when you're innocent. [4:13] It's a very long article, which I also found somewhat entertaining just for, like, the gossip value of it, right? [4:19] Like, Bongino calling Pam Bondi Blondie, berating her in front of everybody and telling her, you fucked this up from the beginning. [4:27] I mean, that was kind of glorious. [4:29] But I also got out of it that, and how much they wanted her gone, right? [4:36] I also got out of it just how different J.D. Vance's take is within the administration from some of the people that are surrounding Trump, like Susie Wiles. [4:46] He has obviously plugged in to the MAGA-sphere and the manosphere in a way that some of them, some of the political folks that are around Trump are not. [4:56] That's really not surprising for Vice President. [4:57] If they had listened to him at the beginning and just released the files instead of doing all the other shenanigans, I actually think this might have ended up differently. [5:07] They didn't listen to him. [5:08] It's almost like he's running for president in 2028. [5:11] Enough time has passed that we now know that if there had been any evidence, if there had been any of these details, it wouldn't have come forward. [5:22] Not true. [5:22] But here's what I'm interested in. [5:24] What if when Graham Plattner came to Washington, D.C. to meet with the Senate Minority Leader and all these other people, someone there was taking detailed notes, and they decided to write a book? [5:36] It's not so much what insider conversations talk about, it's about what ends up happening. [5:43] It can sound salacious. [5:45] What are you talking about? [5:45] It can sound really, really provocative. [5:48] Horace, what are you talking about? [5:49] But it has no actual merit in the end. [5:50] The Department of Justice has not moved whatsoever on going after any of the people who are in these files. [5:55] They have covered it up. [5:56] They have thousands of pages of redactions. [5:58] We have to go, and I think just to Tara's point, if there's one thing that you take away from all of the reporting in this story, it's at the highest levels of DOJ. [6:14] Their top priority as it relates to the Epstein files was protecting the president. [6:18] Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, and that is not their job. [6:23] That's not their job. [6:24] Their job is not to protect the survivors. [6:26] It's not to protect the president. [6:27] Their job is to protect the survivors. [6:29] What happened in Bill Gates' testimony today saying that Epstein was trying to extort him through knowing about his infidelity, to me, is more relevant because it might explain how the hell Epstein got all that money. [6:41] Blackmail. [6:42] One of these people was a line prosecutor. [6:45] Do you think that Blanche is going to actually face a tough confirmation process? [6:51] No, I do not. [6:52] I think the Republicans, at the end of the day, are going to rally around him and confirm him as Attorney General. [6:55] I think that's wrong for the country because he was Donald Trump's personal lawyer. [7:00] Now, look, we've had Attorney General of all different kinds, right? [7:03] Bobby Kennedy was the president's brother. [7:05] There have been an Attorney General who went to prison. [7:08] But what Todd Blanche has demonstrated already, he has the qualifications. [7:12] No question, he was a top lawyer, top prosecutor in New York. [7:14] He doesn't have the character, okay? [7:17] Pam Bonney essentially made a confession by saying that it was Epstein, it was Blanche who handled the Epstein files. [7:24] She was really a show horse. [7:26] He was the workhorse. [7:27] So the work of this Justice Department over the first year and a half was really Todd Blanche's. [7:31] And time and time again, when Donald Trump's personal interests are at stake and they conflict with the nation's interests, like the slush fund, like the tax settlement with the Trump family and companies, he goes with his client, Donald Trump. [7:52] I work in the community where Todd was a U.S. attorney in the Southern District. [7:56] I didn't know him personally then. [7:57] I did have an encounter with him when he was representing the president in the courthouse. [8:01] But he does enjoy, amongst his colleagues, an excellent reputation for his integrity, his knowledge of the law. [8:11] I don't know how Todd Blanche covered up for Donald Trump regarding the Epstein files. [8:16] There may be ways that the Epstein files came out that people aren't happy with. [8:20] But I don't think that's one of them. [8:22] I can tell you how he covered up for him. [8:24] Todd Blanche went down to Florida and met with Jelaine Maxwell. [8:29] My client. [8:29] Jelaine Maxwell, my client. [8:30] Met with her in prison. [8:32] Go ahead. [8:33] And then mysteriously, she ends up in a lower security prison in Texas. [8:37] Well, it wasn't mysterious. [8:37] We don't know about it. [8:38] But that does not pass the process. [8:39] But you said at the time, Arthur, that you thought that that was basically a quid pro quo. [8:45] I don't. [8:45] Let me just be very clear. [8:46] I don't know that for a fact. [8:48] I want to make that blatantly clear. [8:50] I've spoken to Jelaine not that long ago. [8:53] First of all, people get moved within the system all the time. [8:57] Oh, come on, Arthur. [8:58] They just moved Keith Raniere, who's doing 120 years to have less restrictive. [9:03] But you basically said, I mean, let's, you know, I believe you when you say maybe you don't know firsthand exactly what transpired in that conversation. [9:11] But you basically said that no one would avail their client in a situation like that unless they were getting something out of it. [9:19] And that the move from a, you know, a high security prison to a low security prison would be, I'll use your words, a common sense outcome. [9:31] Let me just make you very clear. [9:32] I did not represent Jelaine on the conversations with Todd. [9:35] We did her appeal. [9:36] But, yes, I'm not going to bring any client in to see any prosecutor unless I know there's some benefit for my client. [9:42] So, I mean, is that ethical? [9:44] Of course it's. [9:45] It's the way the system works. [9:46] I mean, no, no, no, no. [9:47] Tell me what you mean. [9:48] It's the way it works every day. [9:49] Is that ethical in the context of the crimes that she is convicted of? [9:54] And that's what I was going to say. [9:55] That's the real question. [9:56] The movement from one prison for 20 years to another prison for 20 years? [9:59] To a low security prison that she is actually not supposed to be in. [10:05] Well, let me just say this. [10:06] Yeah. [10:07] Todd Blanche probably does know the law really well. [10:09] But his application of the law is, I think, what is in question right now. [10:13] And we all know there are different types of lawyers out here, just like there are different types of salespeople out there. [10:19] Some sell snake oil and some sell actually real goods that are going to be helped. [10:23] And coconut oil. [10:24] Coconut oil. [10:25] Coconut oil. [10:25] We were talking about coconut oil. [10:26] Yeah. [10:27] Very funny, aren't they? [10:28] But I think a couple of things. [10:30] One, you know, Pam Bondi making this omission or this basically confession that Todd Blanche was over the Epstein files. [10:38] One, clearly a woman's scorn. [10:40] She's pissed, right? [10:41] And so she's like, I'm telling, I'm letting everybody know where the body's bearing. [10:45] And actually, I believe that because if you've ever worked with the DOJ in an administration, you do know the AG and the DAG actually do have separate portfolios. [10:53] And while they do confer, a lot of times they move policy separately. [10:57] So the strong likelihood that the DAG probably, meaning the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, actually was leading on the Epstein files and covered up, which makes, though, the point about his character as the attorney general even more questionable. [11:11] And this is now transcendent party. [11:14] You have people who are in MAGA. [11:15] You have people who are Democrats. [11:17] You have independents who are really concerned at the handling, not just at the Trump administration, but many administrations handling of the Epstein files. [11:24] But because Trump ran on this as being so transparent and there is now a law that has passed about transparency and they still aren't being completely transparent, it raises questions. [11:34] On top of Todd Blanche in every act while he was acting, doing as many things possible to accommodate Donald Trump's promises of retribution, especially with the backdrop of Pam Bonney getting fired because Donald Trump didn't think she did it well enough. [11:52] So when that fact pattern happens, is he willing to tell President Trump no or does he just think that President Trump is still his client like he was in the private sector? [12:00] Well, I think there's a couple of things going on here. [12:02] One, I think Pam Bonney has absolutely laid the groundwork for Todd Blanche to have a difficult confirmation. [12:07] And I think she used her time in that closed-door session where she was sworn under oath in front of Congress as the former attorney general and as Todd Blanche's former boss to say he ran the whole process and he was in charge of the whole release and the Dow's at 50,000, right? [12:24] And so she's now laid the groundwork for that to be a confirmation where Democrats can essentially have a layup and say there's no way I could vote for this guy. [12:30] I can't. This is about women. This is about protecting because, like you said, other people have noticed this has been a politically toxic issue for the president. [12:37] I'm sure there's a lot we're going to disagree on, but on the topic of the slush fund and answering to the president, I think we should agree on the facts. [12:45] And what the facts are is that the creation of this fund, it's not a slush fund, it's an anti-weaponization fund. [12:50] Why do we have the fund? Why do we have the fund? [12:54] Because Donald Trump wants it to reward the rioters, people who attack their elections. [12:57] Let's go through some yes or no questions. [13:01] IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn pled guilty to leaking President Trump's tax returns, yes or no? [13:06] Yes. [13:07] Before we go to this. [13:08] He also pled guilty. [13:09] And $400,000 other Americans. [13:09] So we know that we also have $400,000 cases of anti-weaponization against Americans. [13:16] What does that have to do with a $1.8 billion fund that Trump explicitly said this week was to compensate January 6th rioters who he pardoned? [13:26] I think because there are a number of people who have felt the full weight of the weaponization of the government. [13:30] He said this week, when he was asked about the fund, he said, I'm proud I pardoned these people and they deserve money from the government. [13:38] That's what he wants the fund to be about. [13:39] Yeah, because we had grandmas who were in jail for two years. [13:41] We had people who did not commit violent crimes while we watched people do BLM riots in Minnesota and watched the Democrats put up links saying donate to a release from jail. [13:49] There are many people who did commit violent crimes and the president himself has said that he wants them to be compensated. [13:56] This is a joke. [13:57] I'm not just talking about... [13:58] I'm really embarrassed for you that you have to defend this because even Republican senators on the Hill are saying that this is ridiculous. [14:05] And Donald Trump isn't doing himself any favors by pushing this. [14:08] Did the Justice Department have to apologize to Donald Trump, yes or no? [14:11] You know what? [14:11] I let you speak the whole time. [14:12] No. [14:12] Yes or no. [14:13] I let you speak. [14:14] I didn't interrupt you. [14:15] Okay? [14:16] So, thank you. [14:18] Donald Trump is even in trouble now because we've got Tom Tillis, you've got Cassidy, you've got Cornyn, all these people who are raising questions about Trump's decision-making here. [14:27] And I think the big problem is there used to be something, this principle in the Justice Department called avoiding the appearance of impropriety. [14:34] I don't think they care about avoiding the appearance of impropriety. [14:38] Let me just, let me speak, let me just speak, let me just speak, they don't care. [14:43] Every step they make is creating more distrust among the American people about the ability of the justice system to operate fairly and impartially. [14:52] And that's not good, not even, not just bad for democracy, it's not just bad for Democrats, it's bad for the entire country. [14:59] That's not a good say for us to be in. [15:01] What about when- [15:02] But I agree with what you're saying, and I think ultimately Todd Blanche agreed with what you're saying, and ultimately that's why he said, it's dead. [15:10] The fund is dead. [15:10] He did not say that. [15:11] He did not say that. [15:12] He did not say that. [15:12] They're dissolving the fund. [15:14] It's not going forward. [15:15] The fund said that, I read that document, it says it can only be changed by written agreement of the parties. [15:21] That means Donald Trump and Todd Blanche have to sign an agreement to dissolve it. [15:25] He did not do that. [15:26] He refused to put it in writing. [15:27] I believe I saw the cover of the New York Times, said Todd Blanche said, I don't know, I saw the testimony. [15:33] I give the New York Times some credit that they're going to fact check before they go. [15:36] After Todd Blanche was in testifying and saying, we're not going to do it, we're not going to do it, literally hours in the same 24 hours, Donald Trump from the resolute desk says, I don't know if it's dead. [15:48] I'm not sure if it's dead. [15:49] So the inconsistency, I also think, you know, this slush fund, if it actually goes through, Donald Trump won't be president forever, and there will be [15:57] a lot of people that Todd Blanche actually goes after, probably, that actually might benefit [16:01] from this slush fund. [16:03] What about the 400,000 Americans, as you said, who had their tax returns leaked? [16:07] Would you like any of your tax returns? [16:08] Let me ask Arthur one last question. [16:11] That's not who he's talking about. [16:12] He's talking about the people attacked the 2020 election. [16:14] And that's who the fund was created. [16:15] He's talking about the people who don't know what it was. [16:17] It wasn't. [16:18] It was created as a result of a settlement of Donald Trump and the IRS. [16:20] It was not a settlement. [16:22] That's the reason why he didn't. [16:23] He dropped his case. [16:24] Hold on a second. [16:24] Hold on a second, everyone. [16:25] We don't have to guess about this. [16:28] We know. [16:28] Right. [16:28] We know why the fund was created, because the president told us. [16:31] Told us. [16:32] And it was to compensate January 6th riders. [16:34] Are there one last question for you? [16:35] Pam Bondi claims that she had no idea that Todd Blanche went down to Florida to talk to Ghislaine Maxwell. [16:43] Do you think that there's any chance that that's true? [16:47] That's a huge stretch. [16:49] I mean, that's really just... [16:50] Just that she read it in the newspaper, like the rest of us. [16:52] You know, look, I'm not going to challenge the former attorney general's credibility, but that seems like a bridge too far, so to speak. [17:00] I mean, first of all, they usually kind of know where they are, like physically. [17:03] They know where the attorney general knows where the DAG is, and the DAG knows where the AG is almost 24-7, 365. [17:09] So that doesn't really make, doesn't have the ring of truth to it. [17:14] But, Terry, it is not unethical for a lawyer, just because I do this, brother, for me to bring in a guy who's doing time and say, look, he may have some information on you on a case, but he's got 20 years in. [17:26] He's only going to do it if you give him some sort of benefit. [17:29] Well, what do you have in mind, Mr. Idala? [17:30] Like, look, where he is, it's a hellhole. [17:32] Just put him over here. [17:33] I'm not asking you to take any time off his sentence. [17:35] Just move him. [17:36] That's not, and then, a lot of times, my client gives him very valuable evidence. [17:40] She's one of the worst child abusers in American history. [17:42] So is Jeffrey Epstein. [17:43] Yeah. [17:43] Yeah, but he's done.