[0:00]From move along everybody to wait, we need to talk to Jeffrey Epstein's convicted accomplice. The latest Trump administration Epstein files evolution. He is the first previously undocumented
[0:12]immigrant to serve in Congress. Adrianiano Espot has plenty to say about immigration raids in New York. A big, beautiful sucker punch. Professional gamblers find a potentially crippling
[0:24]tax increase deep inside the new Trump economic law.
[0:29][Music] Hello everyone. I'm Major Garrett in Washington. Welcome to the takeout.
[0:41]Crazy train. Politics feels like that. Democrats felt that during the first Trump presidency, Republicans during Biden's presidency, and Democrats most decidedly now. Crazy Train was a big hit
[0:53]for Aussie Osborne in 1980. Osborne, the godfather of heavy metal rock, passed away today at the age of 76. The crazy train Osborne gave voice to was the Cold
[1:05]War. Something many of you in this audience have no memory of at all. Even so, a stanza from Crazy Train resonates today. Here's how it goes. I've listened
[1:15]to preachers. I've listened to fools. I've watched all the dropouts who make their own rules. One person conditioned
[1:24]to rule and control. The media sells it and you live the role. Now, you can decide for yourself who and what that
[1:33]stanza applies to today and why. As for what the media sells these days, many reasonably speculate what it most
[1:40]feverishly sells right now is its soul. What passes for news in these times often feels crazy or makes you feel a
[1:50]bit crazier than you did before. This show can do nothing about that. But to note that if you feel it, we feel it too. And we here at the Takeout will
[1:59]walk with you for whatever that might be worth. Our first step tonight takes us to the White House and Ed O'Keefe where the Jeffrey Epstein story and its many
[2:08]zigs and zags zagged yet again. Ed, you talked to the president about this today. walk us through it. >> Good to see you. >> Good to see you, Ed. >> The exchange did come up again today or
[2:19]the issue here with Jeffrey Epstein did because of course this morning it was the Justice Department that announced it wants to talk to Golain Maxwell about what she knows. Of course, she's been
[2:28]convicted of uh various crimes for her relations and her work with Jeffrey Epstein. So why it is exactly the Justice Department wants to do that again? Well, it's because they want to
[2:39]search every avenue for answers. And so we asked the president whether he approves of this decision or what he makes of it. Here's what he had to say while he was meeting with the president of the Philippines.
[2:51]>> Mr. President, do you support the Justice Department seeking a new interview with Elaine Maxwell? And did you urge the attorney general to seek one? >> I don't know anything about it. They're going to what? Meet her? >> They're going to there your deputy
[3:02]attorney general is reached out to Galain Maxwell's attorney asking for a new interview. Yeah, I don't know about it, but I think it's something that would be sounds appropriate to do. You
[3:12]>> do you have any concern that your deputy attorney general, who's your former attorney, would be conducting the interview given >> no concern. He's very He's a very talented person. He's very smart. I
[3:24]didn't know that they were going to do it. I I don't really follow that too much. It's a sort of a witch hunt. Just a continuation of the witch hunt. So, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch,
[3:36]the president's former personal attorney who represented him in the so-called hush money case in New York last year, wants to meet with Galain because no lead is off limits. the president there
[3:46]claiming he knew nothing about this and then suggested that reporters should be looking instead into the work of the director of national intelligence and the names that she referred for possible prosecution to the justice department
[3:57]last week who worked in the Obama administration and looked into potential Russian interference to say uh it was one of those days major uh is to say it was indeed one of those days
[4:08]>> and also there was department of justice releases of files related to Martin Luther King Jr's assass assassination and Hillary Clinton. What do we deduce
[4:18]from them? >> All I continue to draw from all of this is this continues to be a story and a and a focus of Washington because
[4:30]Republicans who control Washington are making it one. Congress was shut down today, a day early, and is beginning its recess faster than expected because Republicans cannot sort out what they
[4:41]want to do about Jeffrey Epstein. The president has continued to engage in this. The Justice Department is now actively trying to look into a case that appeared to be settled when Galain Maxwell was convicted and sentenced
[4:52]nearly four years ago, but they're continuing to talk about it. And it the release of those MLK files, ironically, led the King family to even say, "Okay, now that you've released this, go
[5:04]release all the Epstein files since that's what it appears most Americans actually would prefer to see you release." Uh, and so this just continues to to dominate and to be the obsession
[5:15]of many in this town. And with Congress now leaving for 6 weeks, this has the potential to linger now through the rest of the summer into the fall with Republicans and Democrats eager to
[5:26]debate it and vote on it in the House and the Justice Department continuing to try to pursue Maxwell, get grand jury testimony released, and all of it subject to the length of time it can
[5:37]take for these kinds of things to work through the federal court system. Starting us off tonight on the north lawn, Ed O'Keefee. Thank you very, very much. CBS News congressional correspondent Caitlyn Huey Burns. And to my right and to my left, former pardon
[5:49]attorney of the Department of Justice Liz Oyer with me now. Caitlin, I want to start with you. Ed O'Keefe referred to this. Congress is leaving. This was a matter before the House of Representatives at least nominally today. And the speaker of the house made
[6:00]a big decision. >> He did. He said they are not going to have a vote on Epstein on releasing the documents on any matter related to it until after recess. Just a point of note, Congress doesn't come back until
[6:11]September 2nd, so several weeks from now. And what happened here, I think, really paints the picture of a Republican party divided on this. And then Democrats trying to exploit that
[6:23]division. And that is what happened today. Not to get into congressional parliament, but basically the rules committee in the House decides what gets to the floor. It's kind of the last step
[6:34]of bills that can get to the floor. the beginning of the week, Congress says, the House says, "These are the bills we want to vote on." They have to go through the rules committee. Democrats on the rules committee say, "Not until
[6:44]we get a vote on Epstein." Republicans don't even want to have that vote in the rules committee. So, Johnson shuts it down. Basically, what Johnson has been
[6:54]trying to do is is kind of keep pushing this off the table. He's been saying today, "Look, the president says he's going to take care of it. We're going to let him do that." The issue is that meanwhile over on the House Oversight
[7:06]Committee, they have voted to subpoena Maxwell for her testimony. So you have House leadership saying, "Let the president deal with it." The president saying, "Why are you guys even talking
[7:16]about this?" Meanwhile, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee say, "Hey, we want to hear from her." And there is another issue here, which is Thomas Massie, Republican from Kentucky,
[7:27]traditional thorn in the side of Republicans, but a Republican himself. He has gotten a uh group together. They want a discharge position petition to get a vote to the floor to have some
[7:38]teeth on this as well. That could come in September. >> Kayen Hy Burns, thank you so very much. I appreciate it. Liz, let's talk about this decision. Kind of caught a lot of caught a lot of Washington by surprise
[7:50]this morning. Deputy Attorney General, as Ed O'Keefe pointed out, President Trump's former personal attorney. Yep. >> Going to be the one to try to talk to Gileain Mascro. How does that strike you? Well, this is a bizarre story on
[8:00]multiple levels. From a legal perspective, from a legal perspective, this really reeks of desperation. It seems like the administration is becoming desperate to find a solution. And so, they are digging in a direction
[8:12]that I don't think is likely to be productive. Jeffrey Epstein has been under criminal investigation for about 20 years now, since the mid 2000s. The
[8:22]FBI has collected a huge amount of evidence about him, undoubtedly. So, the idea that they are now looking to this new witness to his co-conspirator, Miss
[8:32]Maxwell, to provide evidence is very bizarre. It it's I question why they're not releasing the documents that they already have. But another uh aspect of
[8:43]this that's troubling and should be very troubling to the victims is Miss Maxwell is someone who committed very serious crimes. She was convicted of multiple felony counts involving sex trafficking
[8:54]of minor children. Uh she was sentenced to 20 years in prison and she's not going to be talking with Todd Blanch for free for nothing. If she talks to Todd, >> she's going to have an angle. She's
[9:05]going to want to trade something, some aspect of her potential freedom. >> Absolutely. She will be looking for a cooperation deal to help her get out from under that 20-year prison sentence. This is an administration that loves to
[9:17]solve problems with a quidd proquo. And I think that what they're lining up here is the possibility of a quidd proquo with Maxwell where she provides some information that satisfies the political
[9:28]base in exchange for a deal for herself. And I think it's important to note that it's now Todd Blanch who's out in front of this issue. It's essentially bringing in a relief pitcher for Pam Bondi.
[9:40]>> Got to be a heat shield for the attorney general. >> Exactly. It suggests that either the president or the MAGA base or both has lost confidence in Pam Bondi's ability to resolve this issue satisfactorily.
[9:51]So, they've brought in a relief pitcher in the form of her deputy Todd Blanch, who, as you noted, previously served as Trump's personal attorney, which gives us a very strong indication of where his loyalties on this matter lie.
[10:03]>> What about what Caitlyn brought up, this interest on the oversight committee to have congressional testimony from Galileain Maxwell? What could that possibly produce? Well, it would be very unusual for her to testify in any
[10:14]manner. Undoubtedly, she had the opportunity to give any information she had at the time that she was charged with these crimes. Typically, in the criminal context, someone in her
[10:24]position would cut a deal at the front end if they had information to provide. So, if she does testify, either it's likely that she will not have much to
[10:33]say or what she says will be really subject to serious credibility challenges because of her own personal interests in getting out from under this 20-year prison sentence, >> stating it all very clearly and
[10:44]helpfully. Liz Oyer, thank you so much. And Caitlin Huey Burns, we appreciate it very much. New York Congressman Adrianiano Espionad. He represents Harlem and speaks out on immigration and detention
[10:56]and tells us about his turn away from New York Mayor Eric Adams and toward Zoran Manni. President Trump has changed public
[11:06]broadcasting and released files on the Martin Luther King Jr. assassination. Ohio Congressman Joyce Batty says the first is an affront to an informed
[11:16]public. The second a distraction from the Epstein saga. Republicans call the Trump big economic law a sure bet. Democrats call it a sure
[11:28]loser. Here's what professional gamblers are learning. They are getting shortchanged. And we will explain all that ahead on the takeout. [Music]
[11:45]Welcome back to the Takeout. New video just released showing migrants being held in a federal government building is drawing intense scrutiny and quite a bit of criticism. The video captures several undocumented immigrants in a small room,
[11:56]some lying on the ground with blankets and in close proximity to toilets. This footage was made public by the New York Immigration Coalition. In response, the Department of Homeland Security released
[12:07]a statement in part reading, quote, "This is not a detention center. It is a processing center where illegal aliens are briefly processed to be transferred
[12:19]to an ICE detention facility." It goes on, "Any claim that there is overcrowding or subprime conditions at
[12:27]ICE facilities are categorically false." I asked New York Democratic Congressman and Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Adrianiano Espot about this earlier
[12:37]today. Congressman, this video has emerged. 10th floor, 26 Federal Plaza. You've seen it. I'm sure. I want your gut reaction to it. Then we'll talk about
[12:49]potential legal steps. >> Well, it's called the notorious 10th floor. Uh this is a floor in an administrative building, not a detention
[12:58]center that obviously has been turned into a detention center. Uh it looks like they they holding over 30 men there
[13:08]uh with one common toilet. Uh very bad conditions, no shower, and they're held there for extended periods of days. So,
[13:17]this is concerning because this is not a detention center and I believe they're violating codes and rules. And so, we want access to the 10th floor, the notorious 10th floor. And we have been
[13:29]denied access. Uh although the constitution clearly gives us the right to have oversight uh over any ICE or DHS facility. >> Will you sue the administration over
[13:41]this? >> We're taking a look at potential legal action. Uh but in addition to that, we'll continue to go back. Uh this time we were actually able to get last time
[13:52]we were actually able to get to the 10th floor. We weren't able to enter uh the notorious 10th floor area where people are being detained. Uh but we'll
[14:02]continue to go back until we have a clear view of what's happening there. And the the video clearly shows the kinds of uh human violations that are
[14:12]that are going on there. The administration has been asked about this particular place before and has said emphatically, "No one is being detained there. It is a transition facility and
[14:23]it is carrying out ICE enforcement procedures in accordance with the law." How do you evaluate those previous statements? >> Well, I hate to think that the law
[14:33]allows for people to sleep on the floor uh to to have 30 men in one one area with one toilet. uh no showers and there
[14:44]are some some of them allegedly for over a week. So any anytime anybody's held for over 24 hours that automatically makes it a detention center and as such
[14:55]we should have not only access to it but they should be running it in accordance to the in accordance to the law. Congressman, how do you evaluate the administration's contention that in New
[15:06]York City and other jurisdictions in this country, it is only, that is to say, ICE, only holding and deporting those who represent national security or
[15:16]public safety threats. Totally false. Uh I've been to detention centers in other places in the tri-state area, and what I ran into over there are
[15:26]moms and dads, people that were going to work. For the most part, over 70% of the people that are there have not committed any kind of infraction of crime, the
[15:37]people that are working and are actually contributing to our economies. Uh so by holding them there and deporting them, we're dividing and fracturing families. We're making them weaker and as such
[15:48]we're making our nation weaker. President Trump's borders are Tom Holman recently said that ICE agents, and these are his words, are going to quote,
[15:58]"Flood the zone in New York City after an undocumented immigrant shot an offduty federal customs officer over the weekend." How do you react to that?
[16:08]Look, if anybody commits a crime like this this person did, uh we feel very strongly that they should be held uh to the law, to the letter of the law, and if found guilty, they should be sent
[16:20]back to where they came from. We're not disputing that. But the vast majority of the people that are being stopped, cuffed, and thrown into detention centers are not violent criminals. Uh
[16:31]they are working people. They are people that that are supporting their families. There are people that are doing doing jobs that other Americans don't want to
[16:40]do. They're they're emergency workers. There are people that are taking care of our elderly, of our children. They're mauling our lawns. They're putting food
[16:49]on our table. Uh they're essential to our well-being in the nation. So, this is a wrong approach as most American feel now. And if you see in the Gallup
[17:00]poll and a recent poll uh that came out this weekend, you will see that America has shifted his position regarding immigration. Close to 80% of Americans
[17:10]now feel that immigration is a good thing. Mayor Eric Adams, who you endorsed in 2021, said he welcomes more ICE officers in New York City for these enforcements.
[17:22]Are you now estranged from Mayor Adams on this point? I believe and I disagree with Mayor Adams on this issue. He knows that. Uh I think a mayor of any city should be
[17:33]beholden to the people that he serves, not to the president of the United States. Uh and and in this case, New York City, New York City being a a city of immigrants and and has many
[17:45]neighborhoods that are ethnic enclaves for people coming from all over the world. just my district. You have people from Sagal, from Mexico, from Vietnam,
[17:54]from the Dominican Republic, uh you have Puerto Ricans, you have Africans, West Africans, uh you have Albanians, uh you have people from all over the world. And
[18:05]that's what makes New York City the city that it is. And to unleash eyes on them, to indiscriminately stop innocent people that are just going to work to make ends
[18:15]meet for their family, I think is a travesty of justice. Staying on the mayor's race in the primary, you endorsed Andrew Cuomo. You have since
[18:24]switched to Zoron Mdani. Why? Because he's the Democrat. Uh the people have spoken. Democrats have spoken. I've always stayed in the Democratic lane. I
[18:36]am a Democrat because I believe in the values of the Democratic party and he's now the Democratic nominee. We should get over it and get fully behind him. >> Should Andrew Cuomo drop out?
[18:47]That's his decision to make. Right now, I'm supporting Sora Mandani. Uh he's the Democratic nominee. Uh my district supported him and I will be fully behind him.
[18:59]>> Zoran Ramani has never said the words globalize the inifat, but he's also been reluctant to criticize that leading some to accuse him of toying with anti-semitism or anti-semitic remarks.
[19:11]How do you evaluate that? >> You know, I'm I'm fully pro- Israel. I've spoken to him about it. Uh, you know, we going to have our differences. Uh, I like his message on affordability.
[19:22]Many of my constituents are being displaced because they can't afford to live in the city that they love and they grew up in. So, I am supporting him on his affordability uh proposal uh and
[19:34]will argue about uh comments that he may or may have not said and I hope to swing on my way. I I am sure that he is flexible at looking at other spec he
[19:45]agreed and he committed to protecting and supporting all New Yorkers including Jewish New Yorkers. I am very concerned about anti-semitism rising in New York
[19:56]City and across the country and I will fight every day of my life to make sure that we push back on it and I will continue to have that conversation with Zara Mandani. >> Congressman, last question before I let
[20:07]you go. Louisville, Kentucky today announced the end of sanctuary city status. Agree or disagree? >> I think uh I think a sanctuary city is a
[20:18]city that allows our mom to take uh someone's mom to take that children to school without the fear that the principal is going to call ICE on her or a senior citizen to go to the emergency
[20:29]room without fear that the nurse is going to call the authorities on her. or even a m a woman that's a victim of uh domestic violence uh to go to the local precinct without the fear that the
[20:40]police are going to cuff her as the victim and send her back to where she was born. That's what a sanctuary city is. It provides some level of help to
[20:49]the neediest. Uh it's not a a city that harbors or provides custody and protection to heartened criminals. That's totally false and a fabrication.
[21:01]A sanctuary city is a city that helps the neediest among us. And I think it was a mistake for Louisville, Kentucky to do that. >> Congressman Adrianiano Espion, I appreciate the time, sir. Thanks very much. >> By the way, by the way, I think I think
[21:13]that Muhammad Ali must be turning on his grave because of that. >> Congressman, I appreciate your time very much. Thanks so much. >> Thank you. >> You've heard of the art of the deal, I'm
[21:24]sure. How about the art of distraction? Well, from MLK files to Hillary's emails and even suggested change for the football team known as the Commanders, President Trump and his team are throwing just about everything out into
[21:36]the open except the Epstein files. Our reporter panel weighs in next here on the Takeout. Welcome back to the Takeout. Thanks for
[21:50]hanging out with us. Joining me now, I'm just going to say this. Two really good friends of mine, senior national political correspondent at Bloomberg, Nancy Cook, and senior national correspondent for the venerable US News and World Report, which once employed me
[22:02]and didn't regret it, Olivia Knox. That's not true of all my former employers. By the way, it's great to have you here. I want to play for both of you sound from Thomas Massie, who as Caitlin Huey Burns rightly pointed out earlier in this program, a thorn in the
[22:13]side of the Republican leadership and most specifically President Trump on Epstein and all matters related. Let us listen. I don't think this issue is going away over August. I think that was
[22:24]the admonition of our speaker in there was just sort of stick your head in the sand. People have wanted these files for years and then you know the president's
[22:34]staff administration, his own children, his vice president have promised that these files would come out and now we're being told it's a hoax. It just doesn't wash.
[22:44]>> Olivier, what does wash in this town regards this? Well, it certainly looks like the Republican party has lost control of this story almost entirely. Um, this is
[22:54]the the dog that caught the car, but on an absolutely epic scale, right? This is a political movement that said that once they got back in power, they'd be disclosing all this information about Epstein that had been suppressed by the
[23:04]deep state and malevolent actors inside the United government. Well, they now have all the power and they're telling their followers that they used to tell there was a lot there there, that there is no there there. And that's not washing.
[23:14]>> Not at all. Nancy, um, the speaker made this announcement. sort of knotted up the house today like we're going to flee town and we'll possibly revisit this in September. Caitlyn and I talked about that. There's going to be a lot of
[23:26]pending business in September. My sense is they're going to try to kick it down the kick that can down the road then when they come back, >> of course. And we've seen President Trump in the last week really try to change the subject, you know, repeatedly
[23:38]by, you know, talking about the name of the Washington sports team, by sort of talking about firing the head of the Federal Reserve, but then pulling back from it by >> memes about arresting former President Obama.
[23:49]>> Yeah. A bunch of uh, you know, comments on True Social, like an overwhelming amount. And and this is just an instance in which Trump has really not been able to control his MAGA base and change the
[23:59]subject. And he is such a master at that. And it has just been a really interesting moment, you know, 6 months into his second White House where it is a rift with the MAGA base that he has not been able to control. >> Republicans are uncomfortable for this
[24:11]week. It certainly appears to be true. Democrats have been uncomfortable since the election results came in. And there is an example of that on Megan Kelly's podcast, Rahm Emanuel, who is playing with the idea of possibly being a
[24:22]contender or an aspiring one in 2028, talking about internal problems within the Democratic Party and its messaging. Let's listen. We've gotten focused, as I
[24:32]said, on things like bathroom access rather than classroom excellence. We've gotten focused, and I'm sensitive to a per uh one person's pronoun versus the other 35 kids in the class that don't
[24:43]know what a pronoun is. And I'm sorry, 35 kids not knowing what a pronoun is, having your worst reading scores or math scores in 30 years. We have a na a crisis on hand.
[24:54]>> Olivier, Democrats are a chaos chorus without a soloist, and they need one by 20. up by the next presidential. >> That's why we invite him here, ladies and gentlemen. That is why he is here.
[25:04]>> Um, and we've got several people vying to be that soloist, right? And so, he's one of them, obviously. And there's this interesting run towards what I would call the politics of normal in the Democratic party where they're trying to
[25:15]push away the trans debates. They're trying to push away things like Latinx, and they're trying to go back to breadandbut issues, inflation, for example. uh they're going to go after the Republican tax bill
[25:25]>> and seeking a language that is common across political parties and cross geography and outside of most let us say academic cloak rooms
[25:36]>> or online bubbles right and they're trying to they're trying to get out of that and so you've seen the same thing from the governor of Kentucky you've seen it from Rahm there is this run towards again the politics of normal
[25:47]>> oh Olivia that's the other reason we invite you here because you set me up so brilliantly so easily so effortlessly Speaking speaking of Kentucky, there's a governor there.
[25:57]>> Yeah. Andy Basher. Vogue treatment cover. Nancy. >> Well, you know, Anna Winur uh who is the the reigning queen of Kai Nas, the magazine empire, you know, really has
[26:08]been a longtime Democratic uh fundraiser and and supporter and donor. And so, it's interesting to me that, you know, as she's about to retire and depart Kanye or at least the editorship of
[26:19]Vogue, she's putting him on the cover. Um, you know, there is, as Olivia said, the Democrats are really in the wilderness still about who will be their leader, what will be their policy messages. Um, you know, they're even in
[26:29]the wilderness ahead of the midterms next year. But it's very interesting that she is such a prominent cultural figure, um, and can raise a lot of money and get a lot of people to the table that she's highlighting him.
[26:41]>> And Andy will probably say, "I never even read Vogue." Of course. Of course. And Nancy, let me be clear. It's his first time. I'm buttering him up. You're
[26:51]here a regular. We love you so much. Nancy Cook, Olivier Knox, thanks so much for being here. >> Why is Trump so afraid of national broadcasting? >> Ohio Democratic Congresswoman Joyce
[27:02]Speedy answers her own question next right here on the Take Up. [Music] Welcome back. National Public Radio's
[27:16]editor-inchief Edith Chapen announced today that she is stepping down just days after Congress approved more than $1 billion in cuts to public media. Earlier, I spoke with Ohio Democratic
[27:26]Congresswoman Joyce Bey about this. Today, Edith Chapen, editor-inchief at NPR, announced she was resigning. Do you believe those are
[27:36]connected? And do you have any comment on this whole atmosphere? >> Uh, of course I believe that they are connected. When you look at what has
[27:46]happened to public broadcasting, uh when you're talking about billions of dollars and you're talking about the number of stations who provide a a voice for us,
[27:58]uh people are disenchanted. They're upset. When you think of some 1,500 stations are being affected and some
[28:08]have a cut of 15% of those dollars that were already allocated and planned for them. So I think it's a travesty. But the real question we should be asking is
[28:19]why is Trump so afraid of national broadcasting? Because it is an unscripted, unedited voice that the American people can go to. Whether
[28:30]you're in rural America or like me in urban and suburban American, we can go to our public broadcasting stations and feel that we can speak truth to power or
[28:41]that we can have a real honest dialogue. It's also an avenue for our constituents. Whether you're talking about a high school athletic team, whether you're talking about something
[28:52]that's happening right there in the heart of our districts is so important for us to stand up and fight. And this was just one of many things of why I was
[29:02]not able to support this in the middle of night. Something that we didn't have hearings on because it cut funding to too many things that we support and
[29:14]America needs. And Congresswoman, as you know, in the aftermath of that bill turning into law, there is now deep conversation in Washington about the potential of a government shutdown and a
[29:25]complete gridlock on future spending in the next appropriation cycle. How realistic is that? >> Oh, let me just tell you the question is why tonight that we're only doing five
[29:36]suspension bills today and tomorrow? No rules committee because they're afraid. They are fighting amongst themselves. they don't know how to govern or maybe they're just waiting on another trip or
[29:48]call from President Trump to tell them what to do. This is not how the American people deserve to have their government
[29:56]operated. In the meantime, Democrats are here ready to stay, ready to work, going home in our districts and making sure that we're protecting all of those
[30:08]funding so we'll be ready to deal with the budget when it comes up with us. But it's important for us to do what we're doing today. Being able to hear the
[30:18]voices, being able to go back and make sure that we're telling our communities about Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security, dealing with those Americans
[30:28]who are hardworking because they know what the price of groceries are going to be. Dealing with the day with our veterans. Really talking to the people.
[30:38]That's what Democrats are about. not cutting funds so billionaires can have a tax break. That's what this is all about. And when you believe in autocracy, when you want to make sure
[30:50]that you have a dictatorship, what do you do? You cut off education. You cut off communicating. You want people not to be educated or informed. And that's
[31:00]what you do so well. You inform the American people. Congresswoman, the White House says repeatedly, and there's some numbers that back them up on this,
[31:09]the stock market is up. >> Investment in this country is up. Employment is up or stable. Inflation is down or stable. Most of the economic indices they point to are on the
[31:21]upswing. And yet you sound so glum. Why? >> Well, be because what they're reporting are just numbers. And we don't know how much accuracy it is. Maybe there's a reason why he's also been on the attack
[31:33]against J. Pal with the Federal Reserve and wanting to remove him. So we here's what we do know. When you go into the
[31:42]grocery store, prices are up. Here's what you do know. The things that the American people pay for that helps them live their lives, put a roof over their
[31:52]heads, those things aren't applicable. It's not happening. I think they make up numbers. I have no trust in this president or the administration because
[32:03]what they say is counter to what we're doing in government. They would tell you that Medicaid and Medicare is okay. They would tell you that they're not
[32:12]dismantling the Department of Education. They would tell you all of those things while we know the fact is they're cutting billions of dollars from those
[32:23]needed services. public broadcasting. They're cutting your dollars. Dollars that have been federally funded and put in there for you. They have no regard
[32:33]for what is doing across this country to you. No regard with some 1,500 stations being affected. No regard that some 15%
[32:44]are already saying they don't know how they're going to survive. >> Congresswoman, last night the administration released Martin Luther King Jr. files that had
[32:54]not previously been released. I've read some scholars say that that was a haphazard release, poorly organized, hard to read, and the King family itself had some strenuous objections. How do you assess it?
[33:05]>> Oh, absolutely. I think it was a political move to take everyone's attention off of the Epstein files. But here's the thing. If you're going to go back some 50 years and
[33:16]embarrass a family or try to release or release the K release the MLK King foul, why are we postponing votes? Why when
[33:26]Democrats have gone to the House floor, gone to the rules committee and said, "Let's just bring it to a vote." This is current time. The same administration,
[33:35]the same president that two years ago was saying, "Oh, we're going to open up the Epstein files." Well, is he in the Epstein files? Well, are the Republicans
[33:46]who don't want the American people to know about their relationships, maybe with children, maybe with the dollars that are being laundered, as some are
[33:57]saying. I'm just saying there has to be a reason. And for me, it's political. It's wrong. And it's unfair. If you're going to do for one, let's do for the
[34:06]other. And Republicans don't know how to govern. don't know how to deal with this. And now you have a president who is saying it's up to them. Well, who's
[34:18]the them? Let's deal with this and let's call it what it is. It's a political move. It's unfair. It's unjust. And I agree with what the Reverend Bernice
[34:27]King said to protect the family. >> The speaker of the house, Mike Johnson, said today there'll be no consideration on the House floor of any matter related to Epstein files until after the August
[34:38]recess. Well, that's because he doesn't want Democrats to be able to go back to their districts and share the information. And I wouldn't be surprised if we come back
[34:50]after the recess and Speaker Johnson has another answer. We know that he can't govern. We know that he puts bills on the floor and he has to hold the vote
[35:02]open for historical record amounts of time so he can either wake up people who were asleep or give Republican members
[35:11]something to change their vote. It's a joke. It's embarrassing to the House floor. It's embarrassing to the Congress and the country. I don't have a lot of faith in the leadership of this speaker.
[35:23]Before I let you go, Congresswoman, it has been said by several Republicans with some accuracy that Democrats have suddenly gotten religion on Jeffrey Epstein files transparency. They didn't
[35:34]say a peep about it during the Biden administration. Isn't it political your newfound interest in all this? >> Oh, I don't think that's true at all. I think you have found people who wanted
[35:44]to have the fouls released. There were women uh in our caucus who signed letters for it. So, I think we have to be careful of saying newfound religion
[35:54]with Democrats. Democrats have always been outfront on our position. But here's the last point. Democrats aren't in charge. This president wanted the fouls opened and released. Now all of a
[36:05]sudden, this president is saying no. Speaker Johnson doesn't know what to do. And that's why I can't wait to go home, be back in the district on the recess, talk about all the unity and what
[36:17]Democrats are doing because that's why we're going to make Hakeim Jeff our next speaker. That's why we're going to come back even stronger in September after
[36:27]the recess because the American people are on our side and that's why you see so many political games being played because Republicans know they're in trouble. Ohio Congresswoman Joyce
[36:38]Speedy. Congresswoman, it's been a pleasure. Thanks so much for your time. >> Thank you. >> President Trump's new budget law will hurt gamblers bottom line. I bet you didn't know that. Well, coming up, a
[36:50]professional poker player tells us why some might be thinking about throwing in the chips or throwing a fit. Maybe both. Our takeout takeaway is next.
[37:00][Music] In 20 Well, here we go. Welcome back. In
[37:16]2023, legalized gambling was a 100 billion dollar industry in America. That means a lot of people do it, some professionally. And some of those professional gamblers are going to be unhappy, they tell us, with a part of
[37:27]the new Trump economic law. One of those gamblers who spoke to us is a gentleman named Phil Galfon. He's a professional poker player. Here are his concerns.
[37:37]Phil, we love the nitty-gritty here on the Takeout. And as I gather it, within the big economic bill the president just signed, there is a gritty and for professional and recreational gamblers,
[37:48]a distinctly unwelcome line that would affect their future earnings. In the simplest English possible, explain to my audience what happened and what professional and recreational gamblers
[37:59]are now up in arms about. When professional gamblers or recreational gamblers for that matter have losing days and winning days, we
[38:10]log those separately. And normally over the course of a year, like any other business, we add them all up at the end of the year and we have a net result and
[38:20]we pay tax on that net result. What is changed now in the bill is that we can only deduct 90% of our losing days from
[38:30]our winning days. So, for example, if my losing days add up to $100,000 and my winning days add up to $100,000, at the end of the year, I'm even. I didn't make any money, but I would pay tax as if I
[38:42]made $10,000 that year. >> And that's new and distinctly unwelcome because that means you're paying taxes on things you never paid taxes on
[38:52]before. >> Not only that, yes, not only that, but we're paying taxes on money we didn't earn. that and that's maybe maybe I've been waiting for
[39:04]Washington to figure out a way to do that to tax you on something you didn't even earn. Um what effect would this have on recreational and professional
[39:13]gamblers? I mean would it deter them? I mean would it knock them out completely? Could it? >> It could. It depends on the type of gambling they do. So I'm a poker player.
[39:24]Some poker players will quit. The majority, I think, will continue. The honest ones will pay more in taxes. Several will perhaps pay less in taxes
[39:35]because it's it's challenging to it's challenging to track session to session. The the the IRS is relying on us to to tell them. And so, one of the reasons I really dislike this is that it punishes
[39:46]the honest people disproportionately and for really no gain for the government. sports gamblers, both both professional and recreational, are going to have the hardest time because edges in sports are
[39:57]a lot thinner and you make a lot of bets throughout the year as as a sports gambler. And so where I think what I think will be interesting to see is if after a year or two of this, the
[40:09]recreational better who's betting 50 bucks a game for fun, you know, on the side of his regular job, um, gets a tax bill, having lost money on the year,
[40:19]broken even on the year that that they weren't expecting. And, um, I I think that will change behavior for sure. >> Could this also shift some gambling into
[40:28]more shadowy loces? Yes, absolutely. And I think I think what most people don't realize now is that, you know, some studies say that
[40:38]74% of American gambling online is done offshore. So, the majority is already going offshore and this is just going to send more offshore where it's less
[40:50]trackable and really further hamstring the legal regulated online gambling businesses in the US. >> How much are we talking about here?
[40:58]What's the gambling business industry yeartoear? >> The in the US the the study I was
[41:08]looking at says 90 billion in revenue from US online gamblers 74 billion of which or no 74% of which excuse me is going offshore. >> I was interested to read a couple of
[41:19]articles about this Phil. Uh Senator Chuck Grassley pretty dialed in on a lot of things. Republican from Iowa told a reporter, "If you're asking me how it, meaning the thing we're talking about,
[41:28]got in the bill, I don't know. I don't know anything about it," said John Cornin. "I'm not sure what it does." Uh, hello. Yeah, I I I don't understand how any of
[41:41]this works, but I do know that whoever put it in didn't consult a a gambling expert. And you know, gambling is is not
[41:52]as intuitive as people think it is, especially when you do it as a career. And I I I would imagine whoever put this in is just trying to put some numbers on a spreadsheet that that added a little
[42:01]bit more bottom line for the government and didn't realize how crippling this could be for people who make their living gambling. >> Crippling possibly. That's a word you're
[42:13]comfortable using. >> I am. Yeah. >> Because >> Yeah. It can be really bad. It can be really bad if you play a low edge game like sports betting or certain forms of
[42:25]poker where essentially, you know, you might make your bets throughout the year with a with a 3% edge and this takes away maybe three and a half% making you
[42:36]a losing gambler. >> I don't want to put words in your mouth, Phil, but did this feel like just a careless grab for some revenue or dumbly
[42:46]punitive to gamblers? like you bad people, we're going to punish you. >> Yes to all. And I do understand, you know, there's not a lot of sympathy out there for professional gamblers. And I
[42:57]think that the image of professional gamblers is the ones you see on TV that are that are making millions of dollars, but the reality is the the overwhelming majority of professional gamblers are
[43:08]are earning five figures and making ends meet and supporting their families. >> Phil Galfon, I appreciate you breaking it down for me. Thanks so much for your time.
[43:17]Thanks for having me. >> That's it for today. Aussie Osborne, rest in peace. Stick around. Day report coming up next right here on CBS News
[43:29]24/7. [Music] [Music]