[0:01][MUSIC PLAYING] Last weekend's deadly attack on a Hanukkah celebration at Australia's Bandai Beach has rattled Jewish communities worldwide amid a global rise in anti-Semitism. Australia has been rocked by an increase
[0:17]in anti-Semitic incidents since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel. All of this comes amid a dramatic rise in anti-Semitic incidents here in the United States as well. The Anti-Defamation League reported that more than 9,000 incidents happened in 2024.
[0:32]That's the highest number on record since the ADL began tracking these incidents in 1979. Joining us now is former Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, the leading voice in the Biden administration's efforts to fight anti-Semitism.
[0:44]Thank you, Mr. Second Gentleman, for joining us this morning. We appreciate it. Great to see you all. I want to start out with a question that I hope can sort of set the stage for this conversation here about the debate that we're seeing play out in real time
[1:01]about the rise in anti-Semitism and why we're seeing that happening. Needless to say, there's been a lot of finger pointing here. But Yair Rosenberg argued in The Atlantic this week that it's actually not a partisan problem, but a demographic problem.
[1:16]He concluded, based on recent polling, extensive data, that the phenomenon should be framed as a generational one. What do you think is the theory of the case here about why we are seeing a rise in anti-Semitism
[1:30]right now? Jackie, it's not a rise. It's a crisis in anti-Semitism. This had been on the rise before October 7. When I got to the administration,
[1:45]we already started working on this. Our national strategy to counter anti-Semitism actually came out before October 7. So we already knew it was a problem. And after October 7, it clearly became a crisis.
[2:03]As it relates to younger people, they are on social media. There's not enough education, if any, education about the Holocaust, what anti-Semitism is, what even Jews are, who are we. And what is replacing that is fringe conspiracy theories,
[2:24]some of the oldest tropes, all packed as, oh, I just have a question. Oh, isn't this interesting? And then they're becoming almost radicalized on this topic before they're being educated properly on what it is. And this is not a partisan.
[2:38]This is nonpartisan. This is affecting people, no matter what their political leanings are. Mr. Imhoff, you and I have talked about anti-Semitism and the rise and the crisis for years.
[2:52]When I was covering the White House, I talked to you about it in London. We talked about it here in the States. We talked about how it was impacting schools and colleges and what that looked like. We talked about the other side of that,
[3:08]where people were pitting Muslim Americans and Jewish Americans against each other. And one of the things that I think a lot of people are worried about-- I'm curious what you think-- is we don't seem to have leaders in this country who are trying to lower the temperature, who are trying to educate in the
[3:23]way that you're talking about. So where does that leave us as a country? Because you guys were working on this over and over and over again. You had lots of Jewish Americans. You talked to students. That's not happening with this White House,
[3:37]with this administration. So where do we go as a country if the leaders of the country don't seem to be doing this in a good faith effort anymore? Thanks, Gene. It's good to see you again.
[3:52]We did have this conversation in London. We met with Jewish groups there who were afraid, just like Jews around the world are afraid, especially after the horrific attack in Australia. Look, leaders need to lead, period.
[4:11]This issue just cries out for saying and doing the right thing. I tweeted after Australia that I'm so sick and tired of lip service from so-called leaders who will offer thoughts and prayers on something like this, and we never hear from them again.
[4:29]And then the silence is shocking of certain leaders who need to have a strong voice, who need to be saying the things that need to be said. And it's not just words at this point. It's action. Our national strategy called for increased money for security.
[4:50]It called for tackling the scourge of misinformation and disinformation online, which includes section 230 reform, which allows these platforms to spew this hatred. We need more education on what anti-Semitism is,
[5:07]what the Holocaust is, real education. And finally, Gene, you and I have talked about this. We all need to come together. Anti-Semitism hate is a poison coursing through the veins of our democracy.
[5:21]It affects all of us. And all of us need to come together as a community, as a coalition, and be there for each other, and fight it together. We can't be separated like this. Mr. Second Gentleman, the anti-Semitism,
[5:39]as we all at this table and you well know, is something that has plagued the planet for millennia. And I just wonder, why does it persist? We have had-- you, as Second Gentleman, made this a priority.
[5:58]Other leaders before you have made it a priority to push back against anti-Semitism, to speak out about it, to be leaders on it. And yet, it still persists. Why? Well, that is an internal question, unfortunately,
[6:13]Jonathan. And these tropes are thousands of years old. It's called the oldest hate. And you see what's being spewed by prominent podcasters and people with millions of followers utilizing
[6:32]the most base tropes of elitism and global control. And these things are just complete BS, frankly. But it's unfettered. And again, without the education and with the proliferation online, without Section 230 reform,
[6:48]so many people are just getting this information and taking it as true. And then you have other leaders in that space who just kind of platform it and give a little wink, a nod, nod to it, rather than doing what needs to be done, which is calling it out.
[7:02]And I was actually-- I don't agree with Ben Shapiro on a lot of things, but I was very glad to see him calling it out. More people need to do that. And Mr. Emlopp, I want to ask you about anti-Israel rhetoric
[7:19]that we have seen, also a large increase of since the October 7 attacks, and whether or not you think it contributes to anti-Semitism. Zoran Mamdani is perhaps the most high profile elected official who has steadfastly refused to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.
[7:35]Do you believe that a belief like this, and the spread of this belief, invites or cultivates anti-Semitism and increases the risk of potential threats against the Jewish people? Look, we need to level set on these issues.
[7:57]Valid criticism of the Israeli government is protected, just like we, and I personally, can criticize the United States government. People can criticize the policies of the Israeli government. But when that criticism pushes into calling
[8:18]for the destruction of Israel, the murder of people, the dehumanization of people, that crosses the line. That's not OK. So we need to be able to stop conflating whatever issues you may have with the government
[8:34]and the policies of Israel with Israel itself, its right to exist, and the people of Israel, and Jews around the world, Jews around the world who may themselves disagree with those policies, are being targeted.
[8:49]And that's not OK. Mr. Amhoff, before we let you go, I wonder what you think about leaders, others, who might be using-- who might use this kind of friction that we're seeing as a way to blame and scapegoat other groups in this country and
[9:07]pit folks against each other, and the importance of that-- other leaders like yourself speaking out and making sure that that doesn't happen. Yeah, leaders. Anyone with a microphone, people who care about our democracy,
[9:23]people who care about the future, this hate is pitting us against each other. And certain people in power are using that to their advantage, creating wedge issues amongst various peoples. Given what's going on in the state of our country
[9:41]right now and the state of our world, we need to come together. We need to come together and fight hate. And then move towards a better future, which we all deserve. Former second gentleman, Doug Amhoff, thank you.
[9:58]And be sure to tell your better half, former Vice President Kamala Harris, we said hello. She says hi to everyone. All right. Thanks very much, Doug. Today, new reaction to the Justice Department's stunning partial release of the Epstein files.
[10:15]The DOJ is seeing backlash from Epstein survivors and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle after Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch announced not all the files were released by Friday's deadline. The family of Virginia Joufray, the Epstein accuser who died by suicide earlier this year, shared their view.
[10:34]To be honest, in reviewing the documents that have been released, at least the first gauge and what we understand is that it's about 10%. And so you look at it and you say, well, I thought we asked for all the documents. I thought that this bill sort of alluded to the fact
[10:51]that we should be getting everything released. And so there's also this mixed feeling of, what are we hiding here? This bill that got passed was to release all of the documents to be fully transparent. And I don't know if we really have that feeling tonight,
[11:04]to be honest with you. Joining us now is Marina LaCerta. She is a survivor of Jeffrey Epstein's abuses and was listed as minor victim number one in the 2019 indictment of Epstein here in New York.
[11:18]Marina, welcome. I'm glad to have you here. You have a powerful voice. So let's get into this. Because first, it was a tough night after the partial release of the files. How are you feeling today? And do you share the same view as what we just heard
[11:33]from Virginia Joufray's family? First of all, I'd like to say thank you for having me. And I 100% feel the same way. I think all of us, if I can say, we are infuriated with this.
[11:49]And I feel like it's another slap in our faces. We have now reached to the point where our emotions, the anxiety that we are having, it's running through our blood.
[12:04]We are so upset about this. We expected way more from yesterday. Marina, were you contacted? Were you consulted on these files by anyone at the Justice Department? Absolutely not.
[12:20]Nobody has contacted us or tried to reach out to us. So I think it's even worse. So what about your attorneys? Or how about any other survivors with whom you speak? Has anyone been contacted by the DOJ?
[12:34]From what I know, no. Nobody has contacted us at all, nor the WWE or the lawyers. As far as we know, nobody has contacted us. Were you surprised by anything in the release documents
[12:50]last night or anything that was not in there? Is there anything that you're waiting specifically to see that could potentially relate to you? Well, I did see that. On the files that were released, it did say that Epstein
[13:07]was upset that certain girls were bringing him girls of the age of 18. And he was upset about that. And he requested ID. I do remember that. And that is something that Jeffrey Epstein did require at a certain point when we were there.
[13:21]And he wanted to see ID. And he wanted to make sure that we were the under the age of 18 or else it would be a big problem. And he wanted to make sure that we were the under the age of 18 or else it was just not good enough for him.
[13:35]So that is something that I did see. And I did see that-- we saw a whole bunch of photos. But what did they mean? There's no explanation to these photos. Bill Clinton is on them. Ghislaine is in there. And there's another young woman there with no explanation.
[13:50]Where are they? What is going on? It's confusing. So Marina, I just want to be clear with what you just said about the age of 18. You're saying that Jeffrey Epstein was looking for women, girls, who were not even yet 18.
[14:09]He wanted to document that or that they were "over 18" and "legal"? He wanted to make sure they were the under the age of 18. He did not want any women on the age of 18.
[14:23]When I was in New York, he wanted that we were under the age of 18. And he required ID. And if any of our friends came, that they had to bring ID as well. And they had to be under the age of 18. So that is something that was in the files that is absolutely
[14:38]true. So you brought up the point, and with regard to context, that there were a number of high profile celebrities and figures in last night's documents. You had figures like Michael Jackson. You had Mick Jagger, former President Bill Clinton.
[14:52]Again, no evidence of wrongdoing. And to your point, no context to those photos. And a spokesperson for the former president says, Clinton knew nothing of Epstein's illegal activities and cut off contact, in fact, before Epstein's crimes became
[15:07]public. But your experience, Marina, did you often see high profile people hanging around Epstein? I have never seen any high profile people hanging out with Epstein in his home.
[15:23]However, he was always on the phone with very, very important people. And he did put us on the phone with them. And he used to brag that he knew these people. Of course, I don't want to mention any names. But he was always on the phone with very, very elite people.
[15:43]So Marina, I just want to show you what you can't see. These are the grand jury documents from New York in which you are a part. Do you believe that what has been redacted here, page after page after page, over 100 pages,
[15:59]for this particular document, completely redacted, do you believe that you are somewhere on this page, somewhere on these pages? I would think so, absolutely. I was the first victim they reached in New York. So I would think that my deposition is there.
[16:16]I mean, I was questioned pretty heavy. So I think that somewhere along the lines, with all this distraction from yesterday on the 19th, I think Donald, President Trump, thought he was going to get away with it. But we can clearly see that still he
[16:33]is trying to protect himself and other important people in his life. You have spoken about your time with Epstein, how he told you he had eyes everywhere. And he told you he paid off a lot of folks to keep his activities secret. How difficult has this journey been for you to this point?
[16:50]And what advice can you give to anyone who might be stuck right now in similar and frightening situations? It has been very difficult. And I have to thank all my survivor sisters and Virginia Guffrey, who really inspired me.
[17:07]I never got to meet her, but when I went to her memorial, I have to say it helped me break my silence for not only my survivor sisters, but for ongoing abuse and past abuse where women and men stay silent. And I have to say, do not stay silent.
[17:25]It will get you, and it will get also the predator nowhere, but to continue to abuse women and men. So I'd like to say, in the beginning, I thought people were going to victim shame me, which they did.
[17:41]But it only has brought me into a different light and a different road. We have to continue speaking to bring awareness and to stop the abuse that will continue. Marina, last question. What do you need to see? What do you want to see from that which will be, we hope,
[18:01]according to law, released by the Department of Justice? And do you have any hopes or fears around what may be released? We need to see the redactions made correctly. And those redactions are the survivors' names.
[18:22]And the unredacted is these high profile men who have been wrongdoing all this time. It's about time that we need to let them out in the public and these names need to be-- people need to see it. It has to be brought to light.
[18:38]And what I would like to see is them also be brought to justice. We have a lot of these men who are naming these files and have been proof that they have been wrongdoing but have been brought to justice. Today, what I would like to see is that.
[18:54]That's what I would like to see. And I would hope that upcoming future, when the rest of the files are released, I hope that DOJ will do the right thing and do their job as we asked is to really keep
[19:11]this as transparent as possible for us, for Virginia, who is not here today with us, and for everyone around the world who's waiting for this. Marina, can I just ask on a personal note? You were one of the youngest victims.
[19:28]You were 14 years old when this abuse was perpetrated on you. How did that shape your years growing up into a mature woman? It's a tough question.
[19:44]And I think that just a lot of times, I think when I do tell my story, people see that I came from a broken home, and it's much deeper than that. I was in fight or flight mode. And I had no choice but to grow fast. And I think that's what shaped me to be the person today.
[20:00]Unfortunately, the abuse that happened to me with Jeffrey Epstein has made me be the strong person that I am. And I have to say, us, Survivor Sisters and myself, will continue to fight.
[20:16]And we will not rest until we get these files open and transparent. Marina Lacerda, you are joining a number of women I've had the honor of interviewing through all this, for which I have a lot of admiration. So thank you for your time.
[20:31]When politicians talk about affordability, it can sometimes feel like they're describing something vague and amorphous. They promise to address affordability without coming up with concrete solutions, leaving you with the impression that the crisis you're feeling is driven by some mysterious economic force
[20:46]beyond anyone's control. In President Trump's case, it's a little different. He wants you to believe you're simply imagining higher prices. His real concern seems to be that you will start connecting the dots and realize the affordability crisis is a very real thing that's not just real,
[21:01]but perhaps by design. Two recent stories that largely flew under the radar, mostly because the Trump administration wanted them to, make that connection clear. Inflation is not some accident. In at least one of these cases, administration officials
[21:16]appear to have taken steps to keep details hidden from the American public. Their hope was that you wouldn't notice. The first story centers on alleged price fixing scheme involving PepsiCo and Walmart. Newly unsealed court documents reveal
[21:31]that Trump's Federal Trade Commission, the FTC, may have quietly buried a case alleging that Pepsi and Walmart may have colluded to rig grocery prices, artificially inflating costs for Walmart's competitors, while ensuring that Walmart's dominance in the grocery field perpetuates.
[21:50]According to the FTC complaint, Pepsi actively policed and punished grocery chains that tried to compete with Walmart on Pepsi products. This matters because PepsiCo is a giant. It took in $92 billion last year,
[22:04]not just selling soft drinks, but Lay's, Doritos, Quaker, and other iconic food brands. And Walmart is far and away one of Pepsi's biggest customers, according to market analysis. Pepsi has an interest in keeping Walmart happy because it controls more than 20% of the US grocery market
[22:19]and ranks among the top three grocers in nearly every major population center, according to Numerator, which is a retail market data firm. According to the complaint, their relationship allegedly cuts both ways. Pepsi helps Walmart dominate, and in return,
[22:34]Walmart helps Pepsi maintain its grip on the grocery market. The unsealed complaint alleges that Pepsi colluded with Walmart to force competing retailers to charge higher prices to consumers. Grocery prices in general have risen more than 35%
[22:50]since 2019, but Pepsi's prices have far outpaced that. Its soft drink prices alone have soared 67% in the same time period, according to retail grocery analyst, Erroll Schweitzer. During the post-COVID greedflation wave of 2022,
[23:03]Pepsi's chief financial officer even said on an investor call, quote, "I still think we're capable of taking whatever pricing we need," end quote. The company then raised prices by double digits for seven straight quarters. Before she stepped down in January,
[23:19]one of the last cases that then-FTC chair Lena Cahn tackled was this antitrust action against Pepsi for alleged violations of the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936. That's a federal antitrust law designed to protect small businesses from price discrimination
[23:33]by suppliers. Cahn's FTC argued that the law prohibits suppliers from giving large buyers, like Walmart, unfair price breaks or promotional advantages over smaller competing retailers.
[23:47]In that way, it ensures that all competing resellers get proportionately equal terms for the same commodities. Notably, the law has been largely ignored and unenforced by antitrust agencies since the 1980s. In this particular case, as is customary in antitrust cases,
[24:04]the FTC's complaint was initially redacted. But Andrew Ferguson, who Trump appointed to replace Cahn as FTC chair, dropped the case in May. As a result, the documents central to the case remained hidden from public view, but it wasn't over. A few months later, a nonprofit called Institute
[24:20]for Local Self-Reliance petitioned the court to unseal those documents, and they won. Pepsi unsurprisingly fought the petition, arguing, quote, "the misleading narrative in the documents will damage Pepsi's reputation." The judge disagreed, finding that negative publicity
[24:37]was not a sufficient reason for keeping the complaint sealed. Last Thursday, the complaint was finally made public. As antitrust analyst Matt Stoller puts it, quote, "A Trump official tasked with dealing with affordability tried to hide this complaint and failed, and now there's a political and legal storm as a result."
[24:55]What the unsealed complaint revealed was damning. Lena Cahn's team had done its homework. It had gathered and assembled internal Pepsi documents and emails allegedly showing that Pepsi enforced a price gap between Walmart and its competitors, a gap that favored Walmart.
[25:11]According to the complaint, Pepsi actively monitored the prices of its products at rival stores, prepared reports for Walmart showing Walmart's pricing advantage, and raised wholesale prices on other retailers, forcing the other retailers to charge their customers higher
[25:26]prices than what Walmart charged. We asked Walmart for a response, and a spokesperson said, quote, "it's worth noting that the FTC voluntarily dismissed this one. We remain committed to negotiating on behalf of our customers so we can deliver value
[25:39]and everyday low prices," end quote. A Pepsi spokesperson also responded, saying, quote, "this case was voluntarily dismissed by the US Federal Trade Commission, and the unsealing does not change the outcome. The complaint includes inaccuracies
[25:53]and unsubstantiated allegations, including mischaracterization of our business dealings with customers," end quote. Either way, Walmart controls more than a fifth of the grocery market. That's a huge share. But other retailers didn't get Walmart's allegedly sweet deal
[26:07]with Pepsi, and the result was higher prices for millions of consumers shopping for Pepsi products everywhere else. Matt Stoller explains the illusion this creates for the consumer, quote, "to the end consumer, Walmart appears to be a low cost retailer, but that's because it induces its suppliers to push prices up
[26:23]at rivals. The net effect is less competition at every level, which increases food inflation," end quote. And that's the rub. If concealing an alleged price fixing scheme wasn't audacious enough, Trump's new FTC chair, Andrew Ferguson
[26:40]and other Republicans, then launched a smear campaign against Lena Conn. Ferguson dismissed her investigation as purely political, claiming there was no evidence of corporate abuse, and said he was forced to clean up the Biden-Harris's FTC mess, a brazenly cynical claim to make,
[26:56]when his own actions helped keep this evidence buried. The fallout since the unsealing has been swift. A new class action lawsuit was just filed against Walmart and Pepsi. Both companies defended their pricing practices. The National Grocers Association released its own statement,
[27:10]saying, quote, "Independent grocers are not asking for special treatment, only a level playing field, which ultimately supports local jobs, strengthens competition, and ensures consumers continue to have choice and value at the grocery store," end quote. And if you think that was bad, I got another overlooked story
[27:27]that shows the problem goes way beyond groceries. Just before Thanksgiving, during the classic holiday news dump, Trump's Department of Justice announced a settlement with RealPage, the property management software company accused of helping corporate landlords coordinate rent
[27:41]hikes using its algorithm. On paper, the announcement was framed as a win for renters. But RealPage has been under fire in multiple states, accused of enabling landlords to behave like a cartel by sharing data and effectively colluding to raise rents.
[27:56]These allegations were first highlighted by an investigative report by a team working with ProPublica. Last year, President Biden's Justice Department sued RealPage, charging the company with violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
[28:11]and alleging that its software facilitated price fixing among corporate landlords. RealPage denies the charges. According to an FTC explanation of algorithmic price fixing, these kinds of data-driven methods would likely have been unimaginable to the robber
[28:27]barons of yesteryear whose conduct inspired modern day antitrust legislation. In the past, collusion might have involved, quote, "a formal handshake in a clandestine meeting, and it went on to say that algorithms are the new frontier. Given the amount of information an algorithm can access
[28:42]and digest, this new frontier poses an even greater anti-competitive threat than the last," end quote. But last month, Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater announced that her antitrust division at the Department of Justice had settled a lawsuit with RealPage, calling it a victory for consumers.
[29:03]It is a win for renters, and it means more affordable options for Americans trying to make ends meet. The cost of living is top of mind as we continue to do our important work at the Trump Antitrust Division. Thank you for your attention to this matter,
[29:19]and thanksgiving wishes to you all, even the haters. Even the haters? That all sounds great until you hear what RealPage's lawyer said. In a statement, RealPage thanked the DOJ's antitrust division and asserted that they were given, quote, "no findings or admissions of liability.
[29:35]The agreement includes no financial penalties, damages, or findings of admission of wrongdoing," end quote. Meanwhile, nine states that were part of that lawsuit refused to sign on to the settlement. Nine states effectively saying, we want no part of this.
[29:48]As Matt Stoller notes, there's a reason RealPage is so thrilled with the settlement it got from the DOJ. Quote, "These are complex behavioral remedies with a terrible enforcement track record. They're full of loopholes. If I were a defense lawyer trying to insert loopholes
[30:03]into a settlement, this is exactly what I'd propose," While more middle class Americans live paycheck to paycheck, Donald Trump's antitrust enforcers, Andrew Ferguson and Abigail Slater, have been quietly making moves that let powerful corporations drive up costs
[30:17]for millions of Americans. These are not isolated incidents. They're examples of how unchecked market power drives prices up, while transparency, enforcement, and democratic oversight are being deliberately undermined
[30:31]by this administration. In a healthy democracy, antitrust enforcers are supposed to protect consumers like you. In reality, it looks like they're working against you. That this is all happening while millions of people struggle to pay for rent, groceries, and health insurance
[30:46]is shameful. That President Trump openly mocks the affordability crisis while his antitrust people help to fuel it is diabolical. Let's bring in Lisa Phillips, Jeffrey Epstein survivor and host of the From Now On podcast.
[31:02]So Lisa, welcome. What is your reaction to the first batch of materials released by the DOJ? Is it what you expected? It's not what I expected.
[31:18]The survivors, we supported Kana and Massey to come out to DC on numerous occasions. We're doing all the work that we can. And we just feel like the Epstein Transparency Act was a failure.
[31:34]It didn't comply with legislation. It failed in our book. We haven't received full transparency. It's heavily redacted. And it's an incomplete release of the files. But what we are happy about is that if you look a little
[31:49]deeper into the files, if you look into Maria Farmer, she spoke out in 1996. And she went to the FBI because of some child pornography images that were sold of her and her sister. And the FBI hasn't acknowledged that complaint.
[32:09]They keep saying there's all these misunderstandings. But in the files, those were found. So we are so happy as survivors that there was actual evidence in the files that was released recently this week to support Maria Farmer's claims
[32:26]that she reported to the FBI in 1996. And if they had listened to her way back then, almost 30 years ago, maybe a lot of the survivors, including myself in the early 2000s, wouldn't have been abused. So that's a good part about the files coming out,
[32:41]as we are getting those types of answers. Can I ask you, Lisa, what I do appreciate so much about you is your candor saying it's disappointing, and yet you look for the silver lining. How long have you had to do that? How long can you continue to maintain that positivity
[33:01]with expectations and still be let down at least incrementally along the way? Well, I always know that we're going to be let down along the way. We know this is a hard fight. We know this is a multi-layered onion, stinking onion,
[33:16]that we're peeling back the layers on. I've had to overcome a lot of grief and shame with coming out and speaking about my personal story. But I have always looked at, like you said, the silver lining. I've always been very positive in just
[33:32]knowing that I represent hundreds of young women that were abused by Jeffrey Epstein in the early 2000s, hundreds of them. DOJ said this week there was 1,200 that they counted in the files. 1,200? Yeah.
[33:46]That's a lot. And I'm a mother of a 14-year-old child. The 14-year-old's a child. And most of the women that I stood up there with on Capitol Hill, they were 14 when they were abused by him. This is unacceptable.
[34:02]When Maria Farmer came forward in 1996, they should have looked at-- they should have investigated. They should have done everything in their power to stop this man. There was more than enough evidence back then. And there's more than enough evidence.
[34:17]Now, 30 years later, and we're still going through the same hoops. We're jumping through the same hoops. So it's very frustrating. So the Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanch, admits, yeah, this isn't everything.
[34:31]And more will be released in the coming weeks. But are you surprised that DOJ didn't meet the lawful deadline to release all these files? I mean, does it create questions or concerns for you? Absolutely. What are you covering up?
[34:48]How are these people so much more important than the lives of innocent teens and young women and anybody else who was affected or abused through this sex trafficking ring? There's so much evidence to support it.
[35:05]And Fallon Gallagher was just saying how, you're looking at these pictures, and the pictures are showing, oh, nobody's doing any wrongdoing. But yeah, it's just a picture. Why don't you start investigating why they're in those pictures, the call logs, the
[35:20]dates they're there, and match those up to the survivor stories? Because I saw people in those pictures that match up with survivor stories of abuse. So yes, they're just pictures. But Epstein also had and videoed everything on his island
[35:36]and in his homes. So I think they need to start doing a lot more work to find answers. So there are 500 pages that were released that look like this. 119 of them are Grand Jury New York.
[35:52]I mean, this is what it looks like, everybody. Completely redacted. Do you have any sense of what could be here underneath these blank pages? Well, that's just a punch in the gut.
[36:07]What was the point of even putting out black pages, which tells you there's something probably incriminating, right? There's some words on there, pictures, evidence. Why are they redacting that?
[36:22]The whole point of this was to show everything, full transparency. That's what we're fighting for, so that survivors can get answers, the American public can get answers of what's going on in America, and turning this into an issue where Democrats and Republicans
[36:40]and everybody's fighting about everything. This is not a political issue. This is a human rights issue. And that's what I'm always fighting for. Those are the answers I'm fighting for. It's a human rights issue. So last question, as we move forward with this, what is the best case scenario for you, Lisa?
[36:55]And what is the worst case scenario? The best case scenario would just to get the answers and connect the dots of what's really going on with some of these people, all the people, and also the institutions that they're involved with.
[37:12]When the survivors come forward, we figure out, well, how come so many of you got visas to work in the United States that you didn't earn? How come so many of us went to the same university? How come so much of us met the same director
[37:26]or the same people in those pictures? It's not adding up. And we need answers. And those answers are going to help figure out this whole web, this whole trafficking web.
[37:42]Basically, that's what it is, is the trafficking web. So real quickly, you said about 1,200 women have been abused that you're aware of. So how many have yet to come forward?
[37:56]Well, I know before we spoke out at Capitol Hill, there was maybe about 300 that have come forward. After I spoke out and I said, I'm talking to you survivors out there, please come to us. So we could create our own list, which just meant that we could start looking at our stories
[38:12]and connecting the dots, in which we have been. Hundreds have come forward-- well, not hundreds. Less than 100 has come forward since then. The DOJ, they are the ones that said there was 1,200 by going through the files.
[38:28]I knew it was probably close to 1,000, just because I was a young model in the early 2000s. And I already knew of hundreds that were abused by Jeffrey through the modeling sex trafficking ring that was going on.
[38:43]There was many model agents sending models to Jeffrey and vice versa under the guise of castings or of a toy secret or things like that. So I already knew that. And then we know about the hundreds in Florida of the younger women that were 14 to 17.
[38:57]So then we know of all the Eastern Europeans. And these are the biggest amount of survivors that don't speak out. They're the most scared. They live in fear. And they have every right to feel that way, because a lot of them got their visas
[39:11]to work in the United States. And so this goes in so many different directions. And it's very deep. It's very multi-layered. And that's the reason why the files don't need to be blacked out the way that you just showed me.
[39:26]It's infuriating, because those are answers behind that blacked out page. Well, we all hope that you get them for all of our sakes. Lisa Phillips, you are one brave woman. And you have my admiration. Thank you so much.
[39:40]I'll look forward to talking with you again. This hour with growing signs that President Donald Trump's grip on the MAGA camp is loosening. And Republican resistance is starting to spread. After all, the Jeffrey Epstein files are being made public largely because congressional
[39:57]Republicans joined with Democrats to force the DOJ's hand. And some are not happy that the documents were heavily redacted and incomplete, despite a midnight deadline to release all the files as required by the Epstein Files
[40:11]Transparency Act that Donald Trump himself signed. Republican Congressman Thomas Nassi posted that the document release grossly fails to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law. Also this week, House Republicans defied President Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson
[40:28]to force a vote on expanding Affordable Care Act subsidies. On top of all that, some Republicans worry the president's prime time address to the nation missed the mark and showed he's, I don't know, out of touch when it comes to the economy. And according to Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor
[40:42]Green-- we talk about her a lot on this show now-- the disarray in the Republican Party is only getting worse. I think the dam is breaking. Many Republicans may not have called him out, but last week, 13 Republicans voted with Democrats
[40:59]to overturn one of President Trump's executive orders, which enabled him to fire federal workers. We also saw Indiana Republicans vote against redistricting. You're seeing Republicans, they're entering the campaign phase for 2026,
[41:18]which is a large signal that lame duck season has begun. Joining us now, former senior advisor for political engagement to President Biden John McCarthy and MSNOW political analyst Susan DelPurcio, a longtime Republican strategist.
[41:32]Mr. McCarthy, I want to start with you here, because the thing that over the next year is going to take up everyone's time is how Donald Trump is talking about the economy, trying to sell the economy to voters who feel and know the amount of money leaving their pockets.
[41:48]You were in the White House when the Biden administration was dealing with something similar, right? You have some midterms coming. The American people aren't feeling a certain way. The macroeconomic numbers may say something, but trying to convince people that their lived experience
[42:03]isn't real was difficult and impossible at the end of the day. And for Donald Trump, I feel like it's going to be even harder because he still wants to blame your old boss over and over and over again for something-- Yeah, pretty consistently. --consistently for something that at the end of the day
[42:16]is now on his plate. Yeah, and I mean, there's kind of two things at play here, I think. Yes, Donald Trump is going to try and blame President Biden for as many things as he can. And of course, he's going to want to sit and tell people
[42:28]that the economy is doing better than it is. And from lived experience, I would say that doesn't work. Voters don't buy it. You can't tell them that they are experiencing something they do not feel. But the thing that's unique about President Trump in all of this, too, is then there's this layer on top of it of just exhaustion
[42:42]from the constant kind of chaos and spectacle that comes alongside of it. So not only are voters feeling fatigued in their pocketbooks, but they're feeling it in their everyday lives. We're renaming Kennedy Center-- the Kennedy Center. We're renaming bodies of water. We're putting up plaques. There's this whole sideshow that comes with President Trump
[42:56]that also just wears and tears on voters' consciences, too. And meanwhile, they can't pay for food. Exactly. He's worried about the Kennedy Center name. It doesn't just feel like he doesn't accept that affordability is an issue, but he's mocking. Calls it a hoax. He's consistently mocking it.
[43:09]He's mocking the people who are probably dealing with the impacts of a lack of affordability. While also sitting at Great Gatsby Park. Correct. Right. I think it's reflective of the fact that he's out of touchness with it that we've seen in so many different realms
[43:25]across this administration and Donald Trump's personal actions. But Susan, I want to bring up this poll that 37% of Republicans say the economy is not working. Is the economy working well for you, asked an NPR/PBS News
[43:39]Marist poll. And 63% said yes, and 37% said no amongst Republicans. That is a new data point that Donald Trump is dealing with.
[43:54]And a lot of these, a lot of his constituents and people who voted for him, whether they're borrowed or not, voted for him because they thought he was going to turn the economy around. When you're looking between today and next November,
[44:09]the midterm elections, I mean, how realistic is it for Donald Trump to try to turn a poll like this around and actually make a positive dent in the economy and these economic indicators that we're all
[44:22]looking at right now? It's going to be very difficult to turn that around, mostly because he has the tariffs in place. And as long as those are in place, it's going to be very difficult to see average household items
[44:36]come down in prices again. But it's also just that there's a cumulative effect of the things that were mentioned, the ballroom and the Trump Center and all of that, facing the American public of, I can't go and buy what I
[44:53]need for Christmas dinner at the levels I used to be. That is hitting people hard in the face. And politically, what we're seeing is not just this disconnect with Republicans and what they're speaking out against,
[45:06]but the two things that you showed in that clip with Marjorie Taylor Greene had to deal with Republicans voting against what the president wanted. When you see Republicans voting, not just speaking out like the Epstein files, but voting that way,
[45:22]it says they know he's a liability. And just to highlight that even more, we saw Congresswoman Elise Stefanik announce that she wasn't running for governor. Now, two things to keep in mind. One is she didn't want a prolonged primary, which
[45:38]she would have to worry about out-Trumping the other candidate or candidates if it happens. But the other part was that she decided not to seek reelection. And that's, I think, in part because she didn't want two years more of having to defend Donald Trump in her district.
[45:54]She's probably looking to rebuild herself, maybe looking at 2028 Senate. Who knows? But people are tired. Republicans are tired of defending Donald Trump. So that's why we're also seeing a lot of Republicans, not just because they'll be in the minority,
[46:08]but because they're exhausted and they don't want to have to do this for another two years or three years. Susan, I'm glad you brought up Elise Stefanik, because I was going to ask you about her leaving her announcement that she's going to not run for governor and was going to leave Congress.
[46:28]Is her district, her House district, is it flippable? Is that a seat Democrats could win? No? Very quickly, no. Highly, highly doubtful. Highly doubtful. She-- I know that there was a lot of talk that maybe it was-- she had to pull the nomination to the UN
[46:46]because they wanted to hold the seat because they were afraid. But that would be in a special election situation. I don't see it playing out that it's a seat in play for 2026. Go ahead, John. Come on, shake up the table when you said that. Democrats have overperformed in basically every single race
[47:02]since Donald Trump has taken office. So for Democrats, we're winning in places that we shouldn't. And in places where we would be having these closer margins, you're seeing kind of tight spreads for Republicans. And it's interesting because I appreciated the point before about how you're seeing Republicans vote against this.
[47:16]I'm a Capitol Hill guy. And that's the thing that I'm actually paying a lot of attention to. If you look at the Republicans who are coming out against President Trump, the thing that they all have in common is that they're young. We're talking about a Republican revolt. But really, this is a reckoning. If you're someone in your 30s or your 40s or your 50s,
[47:31]you're looking at this and saying, this is not going to age well. So we're starting to see the glimmers of kind of a post-Trump Republican party playing out right in the House of Representatives. You'll see this with retirements. You're going to see this with more votes. And I think come the midterms, you'll see it on the election day. Yeah. Susan, I'm going to do
[47:45]what Jackie often does, which I'm going to play devil's advocate. I feel like we have heard this before with Republicans are running away from Donald Trump. You know, it's going to be they're going to vote against him.
[47:58]They're going to say this about him. And then they always end up coming back. I think of his first term, where Paul Ryan as House Speaker, like was often saying things that were out of line with how Donald Trump was thinking about them.
[48:13]Are folks getting a little ahead of ourselves when we're thinking like, you know, that like Marjorie Taylor Greene said, the dam is breaking? There might be some cracks, but you know, you can fill up some cracks. Yeah, no, I don't think the dam is breaking. I don't think there's going to be a huge Republican
[48:27]revolt in Washington, DC. But I do think you see one-offs. And I think that starts going into how people think about their local races and what they think of their member of Congress versus Donald Trump.
[48:41]Because again, Donald Trump's not going to be on the ballot. Donald Trump will never be on the ballot again. And I think that issue about age is really important when you see younger members starting to break away. But this is not the beginning of the end
[48:55]for Donald Trump at all. He will be there. He's going to spend the next three years hammering his message. And more importantly, we know he does believe in retribution. So there will always be Republicans afraid of their primaries.
[49:11]I will say, though, Eugene, to come back at you, at least-- [INTERPOSING VOICES] At least, Stefanik is a little different to me. Why? Because she is someone who has been a subservient loyalist who has done so many different
[49:27]things to shape-shift in order to fit Trump's mold and to do a good job for him. And the actions you've seen from her in the last few weeks communicate extreme frustration. But quietly. That's the thing. My point is there are a lot of people
[49:45]who want to do things quietly when in 2025, courage is required. If you actually have a problem and you have power in this country, you should see something. If the reason that she's doing it isn't because she said it was because of her family, if she's doing it because Donald Trump will be a drag on her--
[49:59]which, you know, Susan's a New York expert here-- and that's what she's saying, then she should say that. I wonder if she's doing-- I mean, there's quiet, and then there's, I'm going to get you. Because remember, he nominated her to UN ambassador,
[50:15]pulled the nomination to keep her there, and then she comes back here and has to deal with this nonsense. And so she's like, you know what? Bump all y'all. I am out of here. But part of the difference, I think, in some of this, too, which you can't underscore enough,
[50:30]is that Donald Trump is a lame duck president now. You know, that is the difference between his first term and, you know, in the years that Donald Trump has loomed over public life, none of this has been normal. We're starting to see some normalcy in this. The party and the world and the media is starting to move on from keeping him
[50:43]at the very center of it. It's why you're seeing some of this kind of erratic behavior trying to keep the attention on him. But he's a lame duck president. He's a lame duck president that doesn't care about the courts or the Congress's power. So-- Nothing. --what happens-- Before we're done, Jonah,
[50:57]because you were just the most recently a resident in the White House-- or not a resident, but a frequent-- Worker. --inventor-- I had a badge. --of the White House, the plaques. Your reaction. Yeah, I mean, this is red meat for his base, right? I mean, the economy is tanking, and we're in the most
[51:10]expensive month for Americans. So of course, he's going to do these sideshow elements to give his base something to be excited about. I mean, none of this is going to help make Christmas more affordable for any American. So it's just a distraction. Exactly the point.