[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. According to the Times, on July 17th, 2025, top administration officials met in the White House situation room without the president
[0:15]to address the backlash over the DOJ's handling of the Epstein investigation and to attempt to regain control. That is the stuff that I think is the fuel for conspiracies around the the broad a
[0:28]broad a broader cover up of this Epstein scandal. I mean, I just found this article so entertaining, which is not what you were supposed to get from it. I mean, but it it's revvely. It's revvely of the degree to which at least at the outset of this administration, they were so plugged in to
[0:43]the online right, which is where this stuff lives. It is not really bleeding out into the real world. Then I have proof. It's not hard to find polling even last year where Republicans, Democrats, majorities say we don't approve of how this administration is handling the Epstein files. But
[0:57]is it a salient issue? Fox News Channel in July surveyed the people who said we disapprove of this president. 54%. Litany of reasons they offered. You can imagine 1% said the Epstein files and that
[1:09]was exclusively Democrats and Democratleaning independents. It was just not a it was a mega thing, but it was an online mega thing. It wasn't in the real world. I mean, but in that meeting, I mean, the vice president thought it was a real thing and um and thought that it was effectively
[1:24]uh I think the quote was uh this is going to or Dan Bonino said this. He said this is going to be the president's Iran contra. Part of the reason Dan Bonino would say something like this is because they literally brought the conspiracy theorists into the White House. As as Noah said,
[1:40]he is he is an extremely online person as is the president of the United States. It makes a lot of sense that he'd have interest in this. But all of this gives me very much so like Russia gate vibes. The reality is that the president wasn't a Russian asset. He was never the manurion president,
[1:55]but he certainly seemed to act like it. He was obsessed with the story in the same way that his critics were obsessed with kind of promulgating these conspiracy. He fed it and gave it energy. And I think the behavior of the administration with respect to the Epstein scandal, which I think
[2:10]quite honestly is driven primarily by speculation, by by this belief that there must be some deeper story here, when in fact the that this is something that has occurred across multiple administrations, across multiple political parties. The reality is that if there was any sort
[2:27]of criminal conduct in these files related to the president of the United States, the current one, we would have known about it already. Everything leaks. So it hasn't know that either. I mean they part of the what that you get from the story is that they were desperate to find out if there was
[2:44]stuff about Trump in they were like we've got to figure out if he's implicated here and they dug through it right. With all due respect the Russia gate comparison I think doesn't hold up because
[2:57]um Robert Mueller in the Mueller report said that there was some problems here going on. 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 on once
[3:10]Trump got out of office. So, that was that. And unfortunately, because of the attorney general and all kinds of different things, they decided not to do that. But, we can't just absolve him from whatever was going on with the Russians. So, there's that. Now, as far as Epstein is concerned,
[3:25]um the guy's name is in the Epstein files thousands of times. He was best friends with him for years. He was on his plane with him. They were big. They were, you know, involved in all kinds of things. The evidence of criminal conduct. There are two and a half millions. There are there
[3:40]are two and a half million files that still have not been released. And if if Pam Bondi and and uh Dan Bonino and Cash Patel and all the people in the situation room, which is where you usually go when you need to things to be really really really secure. Why are they going to the situation here?
[3:58]No. because they're concerned about how what did the president know? How much did he know and why is he legally culpable? We don't know. But he all has his minions in the Department of Justice who are covering this for him. I have to agree with you. I also how you behave when you're innocent.
[4:14]The very long article which I also found somewhat entertaining just for like the gossip value of it, right? Like Bonino calling Pam Bondi Blondie berating her in front of everybody and telling her you [ __ ] this up from the beginning. I mean, that was kind of glorious, but
[4:30]um I I also humiliating got out of it that uh and how much they wanted her gone, right? I I also got out of it just how different JD Vance's take is within the administration from some of the people
[4:44]that are surrounding Trump like Susie Wilds. He is obviously plugged in to the magosphere and the manosphere in a way that some of them some of the political folks that are around Trump are not surprising if they had listened to him at the beginning and just released the files instead of
[5:02]doing all the other shenanigans. I actually think this might have ended up listening for president in 2028. enough time enough time has passed that we now know that if there had been any evidence
[5:18]if there had been any of these details JD would have made that recommendation forward here's what I'm interested in what if when Graham Platner came to Washington DC to meet with the Senate minority leader and all these other people someone there was taking detailed notes and they decided
[5:35]to write a book it's not so much what insider conversations talk about it's about what ends up happening. It can sound salacious. It can sound really really provocative talking actual
[5:50]mira. The department of justice has not moved whatsoever on going after any of the people who are inside in these files. They've covered it up. They have thousands of pages of redaction. Is that a cover up or is there no prosecutable crime here? Here's one thing with your innocence. We
[6:06]have to go. And I think just to Terara'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, their top priority as it relates to the Epstein files was protecting the president. Ham Bondi, Deputy Attorney General,
[6:22]and that is not their job. That's not their job. Their job is not to protect the president. What happened? What happened in Bill Gates testimony today saying that that that Epstein was trying to extort him through knowing about his infidelity to me is more
[6:38]relevant because it might explain how the hell Epste got all that money blackmail prosecutor. Do you think that Blanch is going to actually face a tough confirmation process? No,
[6:51]I do not. I think the Republicans at the end of the day are going to rally around him and confirm him as attorney general. I think that's wrong for the country because he was Donald Trump's personal lawyer. Now look, we've had attorneys general of all different kinds, right? Bobby Kennedy was the president's brother. There have been attorney an attorney general went to prison.
[7:08]But what Todd Blanch has demonstrated already, he has the qualifications. No question. He was the top lawyer, top prosecutor in New York. He doesn't have the character. Okay. Pam Bonnie essentially made a confession by saying that it was Epstein. It was uh it was Blanch who handled the Epstein
[7:24]files. She was really a show horse. He was the workhorse. So the work of this Justice Department over the over the first year and a half was really Todd Blanch's and time and time again when Donald Trump's personal interests are at stake and the n and they conflict with the nation's interest
[7:41]like this slush fund like the tax settlement with the Trump family and companies. He goes with his cl with his cl with his client Donald Trump. I work in the community where Todd was
[7:54]a US attorney in the southern district. I didn't know him personally then. I did have an encounter with him when he was representing the president in the courthouse. Um but he does enjoy amongst his colleagues um an excellent reputation for his his integrity, his uh knowledge uh of the law. I
[8:11]don't know how Todd Blanch covered up for Donald Trump regarding the Epstein files. There may be ways that the Epste files came out that people aren't happy with, but I I don't think that's one of them. I can tell you how he covered up for him. Todd Blanch went down to Florida and met
[8:27]with Gelain Maxwell, my client, met with her in in prison, and then mysteriously she ends up in in a lower security prison in Texas. But that that does not But you said at the time, um, Arthur, that you
[8:42]thought that that was basically a quid proquo. I don't let me just be very clear. I don't know that for a fact. I I want to make that blatantly clear. I've spoken to Galain not that long ago. First of all, people get moved within the system all the time. They just moved Keith Reeri who 120
[9:02]years to a less. You basically said, I mean, let's let's, you know, I I I believe I believe I believe you when you say, maybe you don't know firsthand exactly what transpired in that conversation, but you basically said that no, no one would would avail their client in a situ situation like that
[9:18]unless they were getting something out of it. And that the move from a, you know, a a high uh security prison to a low security prison would be, I'll use your words, common a common sense
[9:30]outcome. Let me be clear. I did not represent Dellay on the conversations with Todd. We did her appeal. 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. I mean, so I mean, is that ethical? Of course. That's the way the
[9:45]system works. What do you mean? No, no, no. Tell me, what do you mean? It's the way it works every day. Is that ethical in the context of the crimes that she was convicted of? That's what I was going to say. Is that the That's the real question. from one prison for 20 years to another prison for 20
[9:59]years that he is actually not supposed to be in. Let me say this. Yeah, Todd Blanch probably does know the law really well, 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 sales people out there. Some some sell snake oil and some sell actually real goods that are going to be help uh like coconut oil. Coconut oil. Coconut oil. We were talking
[10:25]about Yeah. Very funny, Arthur. Um, but I think a couple of things. One, you know, Pam Bondi making this omission or this basically confession that Todd Blanch was over the Epstein fouls. One,
[10:39]clearly a woman's scorn. She's pissed, right? And so she's like, I'm telling I'm I'm letting let everybody know where the body's buried. 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
[10:53]portfolios. And while they do confer, a lot of times they move policy separately. So the strong likelihood that the DAG probably actually meaning the deputy attorney general Todd Blanch actually was leading on the Epstein covered up which makes though the point about his character as the
[11:10]attorney general even more questionable. And this has now transcended party. You have people who are in MAGA. You have people who are Democrats. You have independents who are really concerned at the handling not just at the Trump administration but many his administrations handling of the Epstein
[11:24]files. Because Trump ran on this as being full so transparent and there is now a law that is passed about transparency and they still aren't being completely transparent. It raises questions on top of Todd Blanch in every act while he was acting doing as many things possible to to accommodate
[11:43]Donald Trump's promises of retribution especially with the backdrop of Pam Bonnie getting fired because Donald Trump didn't think she did it well enough. So when when that fact pattern happens, is he willing to tell President Trump no or does he just think that President Trump is still his
[11:59]client like he was in the private sector? Well, I think there's a couple things going on here. One, I think Pam Bonnie has absolutely laid the groundwork for Todd Blanch to have a difficult confirmation. And I think she used her time in that closed door session where she was under
[12:11]sworn under oath in front of Congress as the former attorney general and as Todd Blanch'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. And so she's now laid the groundwork for that to be a confirmation where
[12:27]Democrats can essentially have a layup and say there's no way I could vote for this guy. 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. 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
[12:44]agree on the facts. And what the facts are is that the creation of this fund, it's not a slush fund, it's an anti-weaponization fund. Why do we why do we have the fund? Why do we have the fund? Because Donald Trump wants because Charles Little yes or no questions. IRS contractor Charles Little
[13:03]John plead guilty to leaking President Trump's tax returns. Yes or no? Yes. Before we go and $400,000 Americans also,000 we know. Then we also have a billion dollar. What does that have to do?
[13:16]What does that have to do with a $1.8 8 billion fund that Trump explicitly said this week was to compensate January 6th riers who he pardoned. I think because there are a number of people who
[13:28]have felt the full weight of the weaponization. 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. That's what he wants grand who were in jail for 2 years. We have people who did not commit violent crimes while we
[13:43]watched people in Minnesota put up links saying don't there are many people who did commit violent crimes and the president himself has said that he wants them to be compensated. This is a joke.
[13:57]I'm not just talking about 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 and Donald Trump isn't doing any doing himself any favors by pushing this. The Justice Department have to apologize to
[14:10]Donald Trump. Yes or no? You know what? I let you speak. Yes or no? I let you speak. I didn't inter interrupt you. Okay. So, thank you. I Donald Trump is even in trouble now because you got Tom Tillis, you've got you've got Cassidy, you've got Cornin, all these people who are raising questions about
[14:26]Trump's decisionmaking here. And I think the big problem is there's used to be something this principle in the Justice Department called avoiding the appearance of impropriy. I don't think they care about avoiding the appearance of impropriy. Let me just let me speak. Let me just
[14:40]speak. No, let me just speak. They don't care. Every step they make is just is creating more distrust among the American people about the about the the ability of the justice system to operate fairly and impartially. And that's not good. Not even not just bad for for democracy. It's
[14:56]not just bad for Democrats. It's bad for the entire country. That's not a good safe for us to be in. What about that? But I agree with what you're saying and I think ultimately Todd Blanch agreed with what you're saying and ultimately that's why he said it's dead. The fund is dead.
[15:11]Say that they're dissolving the fund. It's not the fund said that I read that document. It says it can only be changed by by written agreement of the parties. That means Donald Trump and Todd Blanch
[15:23]have to sign an agreement to dissolve it. He did not do that. He refused to put it in writing. I believe I saw the cover of the New York Times and Todd Blanches said I I saw I saw the test. I give the New York Times some credit that they're going to fact check before they was in testifying and
[15:38]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 uh the um resolute desk says with I don't know if it's dead. I'm not sure if it's dead. So it the inconsistency. I also think, you know, this slush fund, if it actually goes
[15:55]through, Donald Trump won't be president forever and there will be a lot of people that Todd Blanch actually goes after probably that actually might benefit from this slush fund because of the 400,000 Americans, as you said, who had their tax returns leaked. Would you like any of your Let me
[16:09]Let me ask Arthur one last question. Justice and that's not who he's talking about. He's talking about people attacked talking about and that's who the fund was creat he's he's talking about the people it was created as a result of a settlement by Donald Trump a settlement that's
[16:22]the reason why he didn't dropped Hold on a second hold on a second everyone we're we're not we don't have to guess about this we know why the fund was created because the president told us and it was to compensate January 6 riders Arthur one last question for you Pam Bondi claims that she had
[16:37]no idea that Tom Bl uh Todd Blanch went down uh to Florida to talk to Gileain Maxwell. Do you think that there's any chance that that's true? That's a a huge stretch. I mean, that's really just She
[16:50]said she read it in the newspaper like the rest of us. You know, look, I'm not going to challenge the the former attorney general's credibility, but it that's seems like a bridge too far, so to speak. I mean, first of all, they usually kind of know where they are like physically. They know
[17:04]where the attorney general knows where the DAG is and the DAG knows where the AG is almost 247, 365. So that doesn't really make doesn't have the ring of truth to it. But but Terry, it is not unethical for a just because I do this, brother, for me to bring in a guy who's doing time and say,
[17:22]"Look, he may have some information on you on a case, but he's got 20 years in. He's only going to do it if you give him some sort of benefit." Well, what do you have in mind, Mr. Idala? Like, look, where he is, it's a hell hole. Just put him over here. I'm not asking you to take any time off his sentence. Just move him. That's not. And then a lot of times my client
[17:38]gives them very worst child abusers in American history. Jeffrey Epstein. Yeah. All right. Yeah.